Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Monday next.

SCOTTISH TRANSPORT GROUP (PORT ELLEN HARBOUR) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

DUNDEE HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. William Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Dundee Harbour; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

DUNDEE PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. William Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Dundee Port Authority; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Green Pound

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present disparity between the present rate of the green pound and the true value of the pound sterling; what the disparity was when last devalued; and whether he will now consider devaluing the green pound again.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The difference between the representative rate and market rate for the £ sterling as calculated for the purposes of MCAs to be applied this week was almost 20 per cent. In February, when the last representative rate change was agreed, the gap was about 15 per cent. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) on 20th June.—[Vol. 893, col. 564.]

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a further realignment of the green pound is necessary in order to restore confidence? Does he accept that, if this is not done, it will be virtually impossible for the Government to achieve any of the objectives set out in its recent White Paper? When does he intend to raise the matter with his European colleagues?

Mr. Peart: I accept that certain sections of opinion in the agriculture industry in this country would like a further move in this direction. In my reply to the hon. Member for South Angus I said that the effect of the United Kingdom representative rate was one of the questions that I was considering in current discussions with the agricultural industry. Representations have been made to me and I have had informal talks with the European Commission. I shall take note of everything the hon. Member said.

Mr. Torney: In discussing the question of the green pound with the Commission, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that while a change might help the farmers it would have an adverse effect


on the consumer? We are all agreed on the need to hold or reduce inflation. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this would be a bad time to make such a change, because it would force up the price of food, particularly basic food, which we surely all want to avoid?

Mr. Peart: In matters of this kind I have to balance the views of producers and consumers. It is true that a reduction in the rate would affect consumers generally, and that even those buying feeding stuffs could suffer. This is another factor that I have to take into account.

Mr. Wiggin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no need to obtain further agreement from Brussels to retain the level? The decision is in the Government's own hands. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the British farmer is no longer content to see his wealth and investment being used for purposes which should be the responsibility of the Government? When will he deal with this matter? Will it, as it should, be before the end of the month?

Mr. Peart: I have considered the views of the producers and given a promise to the hon. Member who asked me to raise this matter in the Commission. I accept that it is my responsibility.

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions his Department has had with the EEC officials concerning a devaluation of the green pound.

Mr. Peart: My Department is in close touch with the Commission on all aspects of the common agricultural policy, but there have been no formal discussions on the green pound.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious implications of a partial devaluation of the green pound, particularly on wheat? Will he ensure that any agreed devaluation is to the full extent necessary to bring the green pound back in line with the £ sterling?

Mr. Peart: I cannot comment on that, because no agreement has been reached.

Mr. John Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that farmers generally regard the totally illusory exchange rate use for converting Community prices to

British equivalents as being at the heart of their total disregard of the Government's policy as set out in the White Paper? Having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said on the stocktaking document, will he ensure that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House brings this matter forward for early debate, so that we can deal with it with the gravity that it deserves rather than in the cursory manner of Questions?

Mr. Peart: I do not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's remark that this is an important matter. As I said, we have had no formal discussions in the Community on this matter, but there have been informal discussions.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that words, White Papers, discussions and consultations do not produce the extra food required by this country? Will he now start to take action and give the resources necessary to British agriculture, which can be done by helping with the green pound?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman is good at using words. I agree that all will depend on the resources that we put into the industry.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of a continued fall of the £ sterling on the world markets, he will consider introducing a system whereby the green pound is automatically readjusted at regular intervals to ensure reasonable parity between prices received by United Kingdom farmers and continental farmers.

Mr. Peart: This is one of the questions raised by the Commission in its report on the stocktaking of the CAP which we are considering.

Mr. Hurd: When the Minister holds formal talks on this subject, will he put forward a proposal on those lines? Is the 20 per cent. gap, which he revealed this afternoon, between the true rate and the green rate, not at an intolerable record level? Why should farmers alone of the community have to pay a special and extra penalty as a result of the Government's failure to maintain the value of the pound?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman asks for automatic adjustments. We must consider the needs not only of farmers but of consumers and livestock producers, because of the monetary compensatory amounts which are paid.

Common Fishing Policy

Mr. Brittan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has put to the EEC Commission for the reorganisation of the common fishing policy.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Edward Bishop): We have gained the agreement of the Council of Ministers to a reappraisal of the common fisheries policy. At this stage it would be premature for me to say more.

Mr. Brittan: Does the Minister realise that it would be most helpful if we could have some idea of the lines on which the Government hope that the policy will be reorganised? Does he accept that we ought to know when it will be reorganized, because there is considerable anxiety among inshore fishermen about what will happen after 1982, when the present arrangements end?

Mr. Bishop: I appreciate the hon. Member's anxiety, and as I have toured a number of fishing ports, I am well aware of the concern there. Our fishing industry is the largest in the Community and we have stressed this to our partners. We shall have to consider this matter in the light of possible changes in the international fisheries régime. With regard to the hon. Member's second point, there is provision for a review to take place by 1982. My right hon. Friend has made clear in Brussels and elsewhere that we want changes before then and would expect a review much earlier.

Mr. James Johnson: Does the Minister not accept that the EEC policy was chipped, chiselled and planned for six Continental countries before the accession of ourselves and Ireland? Is he aware that the House is united on this matter—hon. Members from all the fishing ports are in agreement—and wants him to fight consistently and fiercely at the earliest possible moment for changes to be made?

Mr. Bishop: I think that my hon. Friend will be aware of the visits that my right hon. Friend and I have made to the fishing areas. We have made clear time and time again that we have not waited for 1982. Already my right hon. Friend has succeeded in obtaining Community agreement on a package of measures including export refunds, storage aids and minimum entry prices. These steps will help the competitive position of our market, but we recognise that other measures will have to be taken into account most urgently.

Mr. Beith: Did the Minister note, as a result of his visit to the Northumberland fishing ports, that only a six-mile limit was granted to the area in the previous negotiations? It is important to retain a reserved area for fishermen in this country, and there should not be discrimination against areas like North Northumberland, as happened under the previous policy.

Mr. Bishop: An aim of the Government is to protect the interests of inshore fishermen in all these discussions. Our visits have been most helpful in allowing us to realise even more the situation which must be taken into account in Brussels.

Dairy Industry

Mr. Boscawen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what number the national dairy herd has declined since February 1974; what the decline in milk production in gallonage terms has been over the same period; and if he will take steps designed to arrest this decline and facilitate the expansion of the British dairy herd as outlined in a recent Government White Paper on the expansion of British agriculture.

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps designed to arrest the present decline in the national dairy herd in order to fulfil his aims set out in a recent White Paper on the expansion of agriculture; and when he intends to take this action.

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the Government's decision regarding new milk prices for the remainder of 1975.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the further fall in confidence of farmers in the future of the dairy industry, whether he will now make a statement on the state of the industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Figures for the United Kingdom dairy herd are available on a December or June basis only. Between December 1973 and December 1974, the latest date for which figures are available, the herd declined by 154,000. Sales of milk through the milk marketing boards were 82 million gallons less in the 12 months ending 31st December 1974 than in the 12 months ending 31st December 1973.
The Government are considering with the interests concerned what measures might be right and practicable to take in furtherance of the aims set out in the Government's White Paper.

Mr. Boscawen: Do these figures not reveal that the Ministry has presided over nearly 18 months of continual, persistent and unremitting decline in the dairy herd, a decline in the return on every cow, a serious fall in the number of inseminations, and a serious decline in moral in the industry generally? If that is true, will he tell the people that if they want the production of milk and other dairy products to continue they will have to pay a great deal more for them than the idiotically unrealistic price of 6p a pint that they are being asked today? If he will not tell them that, will he say what the Prime Minister meant when he said that help would be available to the industry?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Member's initial remarks completely ignore the hammering which the dairy industry took in the autumn of 1973, and take no account of the fact that the Government have increased the guaranteed price by no less than 32 per cent. Of course, this decline must be reversed if we are to secure the increase in production which we wish.

Mr. Swain: Is the Minister aware that the dairy herd has not improved whilst the beef and veal herds have improved by 25 per cent. since April last year? Is not the disastrous effect of this going to be that within 12 months from now we

shall have to import liquid milk from the Continent?

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend's latter point is a little alarmist. He will recognise that the improvement in the beef market which was secured as a result of my right hon. Friend's intervention, has been very much in the industry's interests.

Mr. Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that many people share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), that by their own admission the Government have not done enough to help the dairy herd in the last two years? If action is not taken quickly, milk supplies to families and, most particularly, to children during this coming winter will be jeopardised. Imports will have to be increased, putting a greater pressure on the already beleaguered pound.

Mr. Strang: I accept that the Government have a responsibility to reverse the current decline in the level of milk production, and we are having discussions with the unions to that effect.

Mr. Corbett: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that talks are taking place with the industry. Will he ensure that these are conducted with great urgency? If the present decline in the dairy herd continues it will threaten doorstep deliveries and totally sabotage the aims of extra output which we so urgently need, as set out in the White Paper.

Mr. Strang: I agree that we have to reverse this decline if we are to achieve the targets set in the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister not agree that the only way to expand production from the land is to give a realistic price for the end product? Is he aware that the cost of production has increased during the last six months? Has he any plans to introduce a special price review this autumn?

Mr. Strang: The problem is that the consumer and the producer may sometimes disagree about what is a realistic price. I accept that if we are to get the expansion and investment that we need the industry must get a satisfactory income with which to finance it.

Mr. Jopling: Will the Minister stop living in the past and tell us that he will now look to his responsibilities? Is he aware that there is deep concern over the danger of fodder shortages in many parts of the country next winter? Has he seen statements in the Press that there is a danger of liquid milk rationing next winter, and does he accept the need for higher prices for milk for producers in the very near future, so that they will be able to maintain supplies over next winter?

Mr. Strang: It is a little alarmist for the hon. Member to talk about rationing at this stage, but certainly we accept that we must reverse the current trend. That is what the negotiations with the farming unions are all about. It is not the question of the Government's having been in office for 18 months. We gave the industry the biggest increase ever last October. We are talking here about a follow-up to "Food from Our Own Resources" and it would be wrong to preempt the discussions which are taking place.

Agriculture Industry (Expansion)

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to initiate his programme of expansion of British agriculture.

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of the 26 per cent. fall in farming incomes in 1974, he will expedite the implementation of the Government White Paper on the expansion of British agriculture.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the details of how he proposes to implement the Government's long-term proposals for agriculture.

Mr. Peart: The White Paper set out guidelines for agriculture and the development of our agricultural policies over a period of years. Nevertheless, as foreshadowed in the White Paper, discussions are in progress with the interests concerned about whether there are specific measures which it would be right and practicable to take in furtherance of our aims.

Mr. Jones: The Government's White Paper, "Food from Our Own Resources" said that
the potential from greater use of home produced grass was still very great
and went on to refer to an intensified programme of work by the advisory services. Does that programme refer specifically to the irrigation and conservation techniques? What progress is being made?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member is quite right to ask me this question and to seek an indication of my thoughts upon it. Among the issues being discussed are the effectiveness of capital and production grants, including possible ways of providing incentives for the better use and conservation of grass. Other matters include such things as the green pound. I accept what the hon. Member said about grass conservation.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of registered milk producers in Wales has declined from 27,500 in 1955 to 11,300 at present and that this is doing tremendous injury to the rural communities of Wales? Is he also aware that in the year which ended 30th April this year no less than £266 million worth of butter was imported into Britain? Can we not, in an expansion programme, produce this for ourselves?

Mr. Peart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said in reply to a series of questions, we want to reverse the decline in the dairy herd. I am having, and have had, talks on this matter. I accept that the situation is serious and that it must be put right.

Mr. Graham: In any discussions which take place, particularly with the Treasury, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of pointing out that the White Paper was drawn up after wide consultations, that it has been universally welcomed by consumers and producers as a sound base for both expanding our agricultural economy and of saving money, and that the Treasury action to help implement these policies will he warmly welcomed?

Mr. Peart: Naturally—[Interruption.] That is not in my brief! The White


Paper recognises the producers' need for assurances about their future levels of return. I think I have said in the House on previous occasions that they must, however, get their principal incentive for expansion from the Market.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the Minister aware that in 1974 farming income fell by 26 per cent. and that the farmers now feel threatened by the Community Land Act, the capital transfer tax, the proposed wealth tax and the possible re-rating of agricultural land? Is he also aware that only an immediate injection of capital will give back to the farmer the confidence that he needs? Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will give that immediate injection of capital?

Mr. Peart: I do not want to repeat the history of the Conservative Party in this area. It encouraged people to get out of milk production and to go into livestock production. Conservative Members made a mess of it, and they know it. When I took up my present position my job was to try to bring back confidence. Indeed, in the beef sector we have done so. I want to reverse the present contraction in the dairy industry.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny the rumour that the European Commission wishes to use price lowering as a means of reducing milk production throughout the EEC? What will my right hon. Friend do to prevent that happening, so that our dairy farmers are not forced to produce even less?

Mr. Peart: I give the assurance to my hon. Friend that I shall resist it strongly.

Sir John Hall: In view of the bitterly grave situation of the milk supply and the answers given by the Parliamentary Secretary to an earlier question, will the Minister say categorically that there is no danger at all of milk rationing within the next 12 months or so?

Mr. Peart: In my view talk of milk rationing is panic mongering.

Eggs

Mr. Cope: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that British egg producers can now

trade in the European Community on free and fair terms of competition.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the working of existing arrangements in preventing further importation of eggs at prices which are unfairly competitive.

Mr. Bishop: Taking account of the situation in our egg market my right hon. Friend approached the European Commission last Friday requesting action under Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession in the interests of producers here. In response the Commission has authorised the suspension until the end of October of the payment of monetary compensatory amounts on eggs and the doubling of the subsidy paid on exports to selected markets outside the Community.
We welcome this recognition by the Commission of the need for special measures to deal with the situation in the United Kingdom egg market. The suspension of monetary compensatory amounts removes a subsidy that has been increasing on French eggs sent to this market. The increase in export restitutions means that the financial incentive to Continental traders to export to the most important third country markets will be three times that payable on exports to the United Kingdom. These measures, together with the French Government's continuing programme for slaughtering laying hens, should relieve the pressures on our market. We shall now have to see whether the measures announced prove sufficient. But we shall continue to watch the situation closely and to maintain continuous contact with the Commission.

Mr. Cope: Is the Minister blissfully unaware of the fact that this situation has not developed over the past few weeks but has been building up over the past 12 months? Is he also aware that there are still accession compensatory subsidies to be paid, and still no restrictions on imports? He seems very pleased with the temporary improvement that he has got, but is that all that the Minister asked for in Brussels?

Mr. Bishop: I think that the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the efforts that my right hon. Friend has made in Brussels over recent months in considering the


problems facing the industry. Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession refers to difficulties which are serious and liable to persist. I am very grateful that the Community has now taken effective and quick action in this respect. I do not think that we should underestimate the value of this concession in terms of the discouragement of imports.

Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister aware that while Brussels fiddles about with this problem, egg producers are facing continuing and heavy losses? Will he give an undertaking that unless the French Government rapidly carry out their pledge to slaughter 2 million laying hens, he will advise his right hon. Friend to put an immediate ban on further French egg imports until that programme has been completed?

Mr. Bishop: I assure my hon. Friend that on the French culling scheme, the slaughter of up to 2 million hens is now in operation. I understand that already I million birds have been destroyed. This should help to firm the Community market. The measures I have just announced should help to improve the competitiveness of our own industry.

Mr. Clegg: Will the Minister explain in simple terms why this and other Governments are so slow to take action against dumping not only eggs but many other products which affect my constituency?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that sometimes these matters are difficult to establish. We have certainly impressed upon the Commission the difficulties facing our own industry. I want to underline the fact that monetary compensatory amounts have been paid to importers, thus reducing the cost of imported supplies. From now on an average of 1·495p per dozen will be the amount which importers will bear.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EEC stocktaking document on the common agricultural policy, indicating which proposals outlined in that document he accepts, which proposals he rejects and what representation he has made to the

EEC Commission concerning this document.

Mr. Peart: I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made following the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 28th-29th April. The Council has not discussed the stocktaking report since then, although consideration has continued at official level.—[Vol. 891, c. 732.]

Mr. Winterton: I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I should like to follow up the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). Is the Minister aware that the Commission's proposals, in their present form, are totally unacceptable to the British dairy industry and will treat the British dairy farmer very severely? This situation is based upon the inadequate structure of the agriculture industry on the Continent. Will the Minister go further than merely resisting these proposals in their present form? Will he give the House an assurance that, if necessary, he will use the veto?

Mr. Peart: It would be wrong to make such an announcement at this stage. The stocktaking document is very valuable. The Scrutiny Committee, to which I gave evidence, has examined the position. In my view there are some good policies indicated in the document, which we should welcome. I shall not repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). However, I shall, of course, resist measures that will harm our dairy industry.

Mr. Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the present position of soft fruit growers, especially raspberry producers, who fear the effects of possible dumping by Eastern European Communist countries into the Common Market? Will he especially look at the position of single fruit growers, with a view to helping them?

Mr. Peart: That is not in the stocktaking document.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous amount of opposition building up on the Opposition benches to the common agricultural policy and, indeed, to membership of the Community? Will he change his mind yet again and defend the sovereignty of the British Parliament?

Mr. Peart: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is too late. We are in the Community and we must make it work in out own interests.

Butter

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the factory capacity for butter production in Great Britain; what was the actual production of butter in 1974; and if he will take steps designed to increase the supply of milk to increase that available to the butter industry.

Mr. Strang: Production of butter in the United Kingdom in 1974 was 52,000 tons. My Department does not collect details of the capacity of butter factories. As regards milk supplies, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the Questions put to me by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and others.

Mr. Morrison: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that unless action is taken now to increase the supply of milk, more factories producing butter are bound to be closed? Will he now answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen)? Does he agree that the only way to reverse the current trend is to put up the price of milk?

Mr. Strang: We certainly want to increase milk production, as has been reiterated. But it is not just the decline in milk production which has affected butter production. Increased supplies of milk have been going into liquid consumption and cheese manufacture.

Mr. Marten: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the stocktaking document, referred to by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), is designed to reduce the supply of milk? Will he persuade his right hon. Friend to have words with the Leader of the House so that we can debate the stocktaking document before the House rises for the Summer Recess, and give a definite instruction to the Minister to veto this ridiculous proposition?

Mr. Strang: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are making rather much of this point. Inherent in the idea of the Common

Market is that production should be developed where there is a comparative advantage. We have climatic advantages in grass and dairy production and a more efficient industry. Therefore, it is consistent that we should expect to get a higher share of the production of milk and dairy produce in the context of the total Community.

Mr. Joplin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, due to the decline in the dairy herd over which the Government have presided this year, on the latest estimates butter production in this country will cease at the end of this month and will not be resumed until March next year?

Mr. Strang: Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be vying with each other in irresponsibility. Of course there has been a decline in the dairy herd, which we are determined to reverse. But it is nonsense to talk about rationing, and no butter production whatsoever.

Sugar Beet

Mr. Shersby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's estimate of total plantings of sugar beet for the 1975–76 harvest.

Mr. Strang: 480,300 acres.

Mr. Shersby: What does the Minister estimate will be the effect of a good sugar beet crop on the price of a 2 lb. packet of sugar in the autumn?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that after what happened in the sugar market last year, when, at the beginning, we were paying a CSA price of £60 a ton and in November the world price reached over £600 a ton, it would be rash for anyone to predict the effect of this year's crop on this year's sugar price.

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what plans the British Sugar Corporation has for expansion in beet production? Will he indicate what effect it is likely to have on the cane sugar workers in Merseyside and elsewhere? Will he ensure that the workers in those areas are given any extra beet production for refining to maintain their jobs? Is he aware that this is a most


important matter for workers in areas like Merseyside, Glasgow and London?

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend has raised a number of important points. The Government welcome the British Sugar Corporation's expansion programme. Equally, we attach the highest importance to the interests of workers in the refining industry. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend had numerous discussions with representatives of those workers and that we continue to have their confidence.

Mr. Freud: What percentage increase yield does the hon. Gentleman expect to get from the 1975–76 sugar crop, and what contingency plans have been made for any shortage?

Mr. Strang: The basic problem in agricultural marketing is that we cannot predict what the crop will be next autumn, but it is unfortunate that plantings have been somewhat less this year as a result of the difficult soil conditions.

Mr. Swain: Owing to the disastrous and inevitable effect on the sugar beet crop of a late frost and the drought conditions which now exist, what forecast estimates has the Ministry made of the amount of sugar beet imports which will have to be made from European countries into Great Britain this winter to maintain our supplies?

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about conditions to date having been adverse for the current sugar crop. The imports which we make in the coming year will, by and large, come from those developing countries from which, traditionaly, we have imported sugar.

Mr. William Clark: In view of the projected increase in sugar beet production envisaged by the BSC, will the Government give a categoric assurance that the commitment that we gave to the cane sugar growers in the Caribbean and African countries still stands, and that consequently those countries can be assured of a continuing market in this country?

Mr. Strang: Absolutely. That is not only a British, but a Community commitment, by which we shall stand.

Horticulture Industry

Mr. Wakeham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the Government of the Netherlands with respect to the artificially low cost of natural gas used in that country for horticultural production and the effect that the use of that gas has on the terms of trade in horticultural produce between Great Britain and the Netherlands.

Mr. Strang: I have no evidence that the prices charged for natural gas in the Netherlands are artificially low in relation to the cost of distributing the onshore supply available in that country. Gas costs in the Netherlands are only one of many factors influencing the volume and price of Dutch horticultural exports to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wakeham: Is the Minister aware that there are many people engaged in the glasshouse crop production who disagree with the answer which the Minister has just given and who are greatly concerned about the failure of the Government to make representations to stop what they consider to be unfair competition?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the Commission, in its latest proposals to the Council of Ministers, envisaged that the price of natural gas—it was thinking especially about the Netherlands—should be brought more into line with the price of oil.

Mr. Newens: Does the Minister regard it as satisfactory to pay glasshouse crop producers to dismantle the glass which was frequently erected with Government grants? Is it not an absolute disgrace at a time like this, when we need to produce at home rather than to import, that we should be prepared to accept an outrageous policy of this description because we failed to give the support which we should have given to our home industry?

Mr. Strang: No. That would not be satisfactory. As my right hon. Friend did not find the Commission's proposals acceptable, he opposed them in the Council of Ministers. Those proposals have been taken back, and are being reconsidered.
I cannot accept that we have in any way neglected the industry. The support


which we gave it at the right time, when it needed it, last year, was welcomed by horticultural interests.

Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister confirm that our glasshouse producers are suffering from unfair competition at present, as a result of his Department's refusal to take the appropriate action?

Mr. Strang: Frankly, I think that the Opposition are about six weeks out of date. They have not noticed that the prices of tomatoes and lettuces are up more than 40 per cent., compared with last year. The industry is doing well now.

Fishing Quotas and Conservation

Mr. Clegg: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the fishing quotas agreed at the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission, indicating whether he is satisfied with the outcome; and if he intends to ratify the agreement.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on conservation of fish stocks.

Mr. Bishop: The stocks of greatest importance to our industry are heavily fished by several countries. The Government believe that effective conservation must depend upon measures agreed internationally between them. The means for achieving agreement is the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, of which all North European fishing nations are members. At its recent meeting, the Commission agreed on a number of important steps, including quota reductions for plaice and herring in the North Sea, and for herring to the West of Scotland. This will involve sacrifices for our industry which, as the Government are well aware, already faces considerable difficulties. Nevertheless, I believe that the measures agreed—which also involve sacrifices for the other States concerned—are essential to secure the industry's future.

Mr. Clegg: It was not easy to hear what the Minister said. Will he ensure that other countries as well as ourselves observe these agreements? Is he aware that officials of his Department are very good at seeing that the agreements are

observed in this country? Will he please ensure that they are observed elsewhere so that we are all on an equal footing?

Mr. Bishop: This matter was discussed when I visited Fleetwood recently. There is a common feeling amongst fishermen of all countries that the fishermen of other countries do not observe their quotas. However, this is a matter for national Governments. My Department is very much in touch with the situation locally around our coasts, and with other members of the Commission.

Mr. Henderson: The Minister said that the fishing industry will have to make sacrifices. Is he aware that the Scottish fishermen have already suffered a reduction of 25 per cent. in the value of their landings for the first five months of this year? Will he tell us when the Government will take action on this matter, instead of the endless discussions, promises, and debates?

Mr. Bishop: There are two points here. The first is the quota, which is a matter of reduction for all members of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The question of catching more fish is bound up with the question of limits. Those matters are now being considered in the discussions in the Law of the Sea Conference and on the common fisheries policy.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister aware of the anxiety not only of the Opposition and of hon. Members representing constituencies north of the Tweed, but also of hon. Members representing constituencies in England? Why is it that we have come off so badly in the quota system? Are the quotas determined on a percentage of last year's catch, or of catches in former years? Britain is the major fishing nation—Scotland is the major herring fishing nation—of Western Europe, yet we have come off badly in the matter of quotas. I understand that less than 40,000 tons of herring is allotted to us. Why is that?

Mr. Bishop: The quotas are based on scientific evidence as well as on the catches over the previous 10 years. The quota reduction for us in some cases is much less than those of other countries. The management of quotas is being discussed with the industry at present.

PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)

Mr. Hicks: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to South-East Cornwall.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have at present no plans to make an official visit, although, as the hon. Member knows, I am able to keep in close touch with Cornish problems.

Mr. Hicks: I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not to renew his family association with Liskeard at this stage. Is he aware that the rural areas, such as South-East Cornwall, are dependent upon a large number of small industrial and commercial units? Is he further aware that those small commercial organisations are now facing extreme financial pressures? Does he believe that the fabric of regional development policies is sufficiently flexible in their application to take account of the requirements of small firms in rural areas?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has not put this at all unfairly. There is a serious problem in this and other rural and mixed areas. There are many difficulties. As Cornwall has special status under the regional policy, the Development Commission has been holding discussions with the chairman of the South-West Economic Planning Board and some of the county and district councils to see whether special Development Commission assistance is needed. Industry Act assistance is available to all eligible firms irrespective of size. The Development Commission has assisted small enterprises. The small firms' information service is devoted to helping smaller businesses to find solutions to those problems.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As the Prime Minister is not going to Cornwall, will he come to Merseyside and explain to the people there how the measures announced by the Chancellor are likely to reduce unemployment levels? Will he explain to my constituents in Kirkby how those measures will reduce juvenile unemployment in that town?

The Prime Minister: I did not say that I was not going to Cornwall; I said that I was not planning to pay an official visit to South-East Cornwall. I am

going to Cornwall, but it will not be an official visit.
I visit Merseyside regularly. I am well aware of the serious problems of Kirkby, which I represented for many years until my hon. Friend took it over. As that area has almost the largest number of children under the age of 15 in the country there is always a problem of juvenile employment there.
I do not believe that what my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday will be adverse to Kirkby or anywhere else in the country, because an attack on inflation is the best and surest way of ensuring a quick return to full employment.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister when he will next attend a meeting of EEC Heads of Government.

The Prime Minister: The week after next, Sir.

Mr. Cartwright: In view of this week's comment by the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Tindemans, which defines the British attitude towards European union to be very positive, will my right hon. Friend make clear in his discussions with EEC Heads of Government that he will not accept any programme for integration which leads inexorably to economic and monetary union?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We made that clear to Mr. Tindemans and at the summit conference in Paris. In addition, after the discussions which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I had with Mr. Tindemans when he came to No. 10 the other evening, I made a statement, part of which has been issued. If I were to publish that statement in the Official Report or in some other appropriate way, my hon. Friend would be reassured on these matters.

Mr. Dykes: Is it not time that the Prime Minister and his colleagues dropped their timid reservations about direct elections to the European Parliament and entered into wider discussions with EEC Heads of Government about this important move in Europe?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that following the referendum, as I announced the following Monday, we proposed that my hon. Friends should take their places in the European Assembly. It is premature for any of us to consider the question of a change in the form of elections. It raises many questions. I know that views have been expressed, but I am not sure whether it is even the policy of the official Opposition to support direct elections. We all need much more time to think about this question.

Mr. Kinnock: When my right hon. Friend meets European Heads of Government will he draw on their experience of incomes policies and acknowledge that while there is almost universal support for incomes policies, those policies which require the force of law to turn bosses into pay police are the surest formula yet devised for industrial chaos and disaster?

The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's account of what was said by my right hon. Friend on Tuesday. As I have said in the House on many occasions at Question Time, I believe that criminal sanctions against workers would be an extremely ineffective and dangerous way to deal with these problems. We certainly have been considering—as has the whole House—the experience of other countries, and looking at the different methods they have used. I am sure that the whole House would like to see us getting down, after all these years, to something like the rate of inflation of some of our European partners.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the questions that most concern the European Heads of Government is whether the British Government have the will and determination to beat inflation? Will he, therefore, assure the House that whatever form of wage restraint he adopts, whether cash limits or compulsion, if he is faced with an excessive claim by the powerful unions in the nationalised industries, his Government will stick to the new limits and not be blown off course?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has made clear in relation to incomes—he did not refer to wages only, as did the right hon. Lady—what will be our policy, and we shall stick to it. He

made clear, although it caused a lot of silly tittering from Opposition Members, that, in relation to the public sector, the Government have a very large range of weapons capable of use to ensure that any temptation to excessive incomes settlements does not lead to subsidies, borrowing or loading the charges on the public. The right hon. Lady will no doubt study what my right hon. Friend said about the private sector and will in due course say whether she agrees with his statement.

PRESIDENT FORD

Mr. Bates: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite President Ford to visit the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I met President Ford in Washington early in May and had another talk with him in Brussels at the end of that month. Yesterday I met Vice-President Rockefeller at Downing Street for an hour.

Mr. Bates: When my right hon. Friend next meets President Ford, will he express to him the concern of many people in this country about the statement which President Ford made at his Press conference last week, which seemed to imply that the United States no longer rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike situation?

The Prime Minister: I have to rely on reports of the President's statement in this context, but the President will know from what was said to his predecessors that the Labour Party, when in government before, when in opposition, and now, is totally opposed to the first strike use of nuclear weapons. That is and has been our position, and I hope that it is fully understood in all parts of the world.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister when he will next chair a meeting of the NEDC.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Prime Minister when he will next take the chair at a meeting of the NEDC.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 24th June.

Mr. Gardiner: When the Prime Minister next goes to the NEDC he will doubtless wish to explain and discuss his Government's measures designed to beat inflation. Will he be able to assure private firms, large and small, that they will not be made the whipping boys of the Government's new policy and will not be forced to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea when faced with strikes in support of claims above the limit?

The Prime Minister: It is not usual, although it occasionally happens, for NEDC to deal with matters affecting pay. A brief statement was made yesterday on this subject. There is no question of making small firms the whipping boys of the policy. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are in close touch with the CBI, which itself put forward a number of proposals. We want to reinforce the proposals of the CBI and the TUC in this direction.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: On the general question of incomes, which may well be one of the major subjects of discussion with the NEDC, will my right hon. Friend say what steps the Government propose to take on the recommendations of the Boyle Report and when the House may expect a statement?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I fully appreciate the depth of feeling among hon. Members. I have received a number of representations from both sides of the House about the way in which pay and allowances have been eroded since the last review in December 1971. Since then, prices have risen by 65 per cent. and average earnings by 85 per cent. There is undoubtedly real hardship among Members of all parties, especially young Members with family responsibilities. The Government are considering this matter very urgently. We intend to publish the report, together with our recommendations, within 10 days or so.
Assuming that the House accepts our recommendations, I give an assurance now that the Government will propose to pay the resulting increases in pay and allow-

ances as from the date when Lord Boyle signed the report on 13th June, so that hon. Members will not be adversely affected by the time which the Government must take to get the right answers in the context of our current discussions with the TUC and the CBI on anti-inflation measures in the year ahead.
The Government are anxious that, in applying the limits on incomes for the coming year which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on Tuesday, we shall be able to take decisions about anomalies in respect of awards in industry generally including hangover cases from the last pay round and arbitration decisions which have been made or are already proceeding. The transitional arrangements which we must announce in the next few days will be very important, and we certainly want to consider how they should be assimilated to the report of the review body dealing with Members' pay and allowances.

Mr. Morrison: Will the Prime Minister explain now what he intends to do should the miners come out on strike in defiance of a statutory policy?

The Prime Minister: Sir, that is a hypothetical question, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I hope to have the opportunity of saying something about this, not to the hon. Gentleman, who has not spent long at the coal face, but to the members of the National Union of Mineworkers when I address them next Monday.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Will the Prime Minister give two assurances—first, that the increase in prices since the Members' salaries were last increased will be met in full in the Government's recommendation, and, secondly, that the Government will now consider getting us out of this bizarre charade of having to pretend and "Box and Cox" about our pay, by having it linked to a decent index, so that the difficulty may be sorted out?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give any information to my hon. Friend on the first part of the question. All I can say is that nothing that happens in the next week will change the Government's attitude to the report. There will be no question of any guillotine falling, or anything like that, between now and publication.
As to the second part of the question, while I am not in a position to announce the details of the Boyle Committee's recommendations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because I think the House is entitled to read the report itself, when we publish it, with the Government's recommendations. This problem might have been easier to handle if during the three and a half years, for most of which time there was a Tory Government in office something had been done. Nothing was done for three and a half years.
While I am not yet in a position to announce these details, I think it is right that the House should know, on procedure, in relation to the financial proposals, that the Boyle Committee recommends that, for the future, Members' pay should be reviewed every two years automatically. The Government accept this, but I think the House itself may wish to consider it, and I propose to initiate discussions through the usual channels and in every way to get back-bench opinion on the question whether the time has not now come for Members' pay to be linked directly and automatically with other relevant salaries. What they are is a matter for discussion. I am sure that the House will—[Interruption.] For a lot of younger Members in the House this is not a laughing matter. It may be for some well-heeled hon. Members opposite, but not for younger Members. I believe that it should be for the House as a whole to decide—there are arguments for and against, and I have always favoured this myself—whether it would like to take the whole question out of the range of external inquiries and debates in this House and make it more automatic. If that is the wish of the House, the Government will most certainly very happily make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware, on the vitally important question of Members' salaries, that some of us believe that it might have been better if this information had not arisen out of a purely coincidental supplementary question from the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, to which the Prime Minister made a long and totally unprepared supplementary answer? We would prefer a proper statement in the normal way, and a proper opportunity for the House to discuss it.
May I have the temerity to return to the Question originally addressed to the Prime Minister about the NEDC, and ask him whether his attention was drawn to the speech of Sir Ronald McIntosh on 11th March, indicating that there were occasions on which it would help to enlarge the membership of the NEDC by including consumers' interests and, indeed, representation of the Opposition parties in this House? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will rightly wish to get the maximum support for the proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to introduce, would not this be a suitable occasion on which to make that enlargement, so that all parties in this House can have detailed discussions about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's proclivity, on matters of great importance to the House, to go into purely procedural issues—as he has done in regard to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes)—does not necessarily fit him for membership of the NEDC. But, concerning the early part of the question, this is a matter of very great importance. If the right hon. Gentleman had wanted a statement after Questions, he would no doubt have put down a Private Notice Question. I believe that it has been to the advantage of the House that it was taken in the way it has been.
With regard to the NEDC, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in indicating that Sir Ronald McIntosh said that it would be a good thing to extend the membership of the NEDC to include consumer interests. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been aware that Mr. Michael Young, from the Consumers' Association, has been a member of the NEDC for two months. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman's first reference was to the Consumers' Association. I am glad to tell him that Mr. Young has attended two meetings of the NEDC, one of which was under my chairmanship.
As to broadening the membership of the NEDC to include representation of Opposition parties, I do not believe that this would be right. It has not been the view taken by any Government, by the CBI or by the TUC in the 12 or more


years since you, Mr. Speaker, in another capacity, set up the NEDC

SHARMAN NEWSPAPER GROUP (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

Mr. Hastings: Mr. Hastings (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will ask the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to intervene in the current dispute between the Sharman group of newspapers and the National Graphical Association.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been closely involved with this dispute for some time. It has held several meetings with the parties, both separately and together. It has not so far been able to assist them to a mutually acceptable solution but remains ready to do so. I understand, however, that a joint employer-union committee has now been set up at national level to attempt to find a solution to the dispute.

Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister aware that this union has instructed its membership throughout the United Kingdom not to handle the copy of any advertisers using the Sharman group of newspapers, and that since the NGA has a virtual monopoly of the typesetting function, this amounts to censorship of the announcements of any of these firms in the newspapers, even though they are not parties in any sense to the dispute in question? There are a number of them in my constituency. Does the Minister recognise that this latest form of trade union blackmail results directly from the Government's own Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, by which they confer almost total indemnity in tort on strikers? How can he justify such action being within the law in what is still supposed to be a free society, and what precisely does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Booth: I have seen reports that the union has instructed its members, working for other papers, to block advertisements of companies continuing to advertise in papers produced by the company. Any obstacle in the way of dissemination of information is to be regretted. How-

ever, I think that the bandying of words in this Chamber such as "blackmail" and "censorship", when what we are talking about is secondary action in pursuance of an industrial dispute, does not assist at a stage when ACAS is seeking, together with the union and the employers' society involved, to bring about a solution to this dispute.

Mr. Ward: My hon. Friend will be aware that some weeks ago members of the ACAS staff undertook negotiations with both the employers' and the employees' side of this dispute at my request. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) had contacted me, as the Member for the constituency containing Sharman and Co. Ltd., I should have been delighted to give him the information that I had concerning the dispute. However, may I ask the Minister whether there are any meetings actually in hand between the two parties in the Peterborough works, and when he expects to get a report of developments?

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) for the action he took in contacting ACAS when the matter was first brought to his notice and for the attempt which he made with me on the matter. My understanding is that the meetings which are taking place are at the level of the Newspaper Society and the National Graphical Association. I understand that these are continuing.

Sir David Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the sincere attempts of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward), this dispute has escalated and worsened in recent weeks? Is he aware that it started as a dispute between a small family firm and a minority of its employees—the firm wishing to introduce modern machinery and the employees having been consulted and promised that there would be no redundancies—and that it has now become something with which the NGA has concerned itself at national level, and upon which it is extending its national influence? Will he ensure that the conciliators of his Department bring this matter to a conclusion before it escalates further and before we have a national strike upon our hands?

Mr. Booth: The members of the National Graphical Association may well


be a minority of the total number of employees of the firm. Nevertheless, I think that those engaged in this operation are all members of the NGA. On my understanding of the situation, it is perfectly true to say that the NGA is exercising its influence well beyond the confines of this firm in attempting to prosecute its dispute. For that reason, I am anxious that the conciliators of the ACAS should do everything in their power to bring the dispute to a conclusion. Nevertheless, I think that the setting in which the discussions are now taking place is the best possible one. It recognises that there is a wider interest both on the part of the employers, through the Newspaper Society, and on the part of the employees in the firm, through the NGA.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Thatcher. Business Question.

Mr. Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not customary, when a statement of this kind is made, for an Opposition Front Bench spokesman to have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is put in difficulty in allowing Private Notice Questions if, every time, it takes 15 minutes, because the result will be that the Chair will not allow them. I must occasionally be allowed to give a Private Notice Question about the same amount of time as an ordinary Question. That I have done today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY, 7TH JULY—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, consideration of a timetable motion on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Bill.
Remaining stages of the Child Benefit Bill.
TUESDAY, 8TH JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: A debate on the Plight of Voluntary Organisations, until about seven o'clock. Afterwards, a debate on Arms Sales. Both will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 9TH JULY—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: A debate on the Royal Navy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on financial assistance to Alfred Herbert Limited.
THURSDAY, 10TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: A debate on a motion to take note of the Third Report from the Expenditure Committee, Session 1973–74, on postgraduate education and the Third Report of 1974 on education maintenance allowances, together with any Special Reports, until about seven o'clock.
Afterwards, a debate on a motion to take note of the Seventh Report from the Expenditure Committee, Session 1974 on police recruitment and wastage and the related Special Report.
Motions on the Weights and Measures 1963 Act Orders relating to dried vegetables, flour and flour products, and cereal breakfast foods and oat products.
FRIDAY, 11TH JULY—Private Members Bills.
MONDAY, 14TH JULY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: Subject for debate to be announced later.

Mrs. Thatcher: Although we shall make our views on the timetable motion known in detail on Monday, is the Leader of the House aware that the Opposition do not think that it is necessary to bring forward this motion at the moment and that we shall protest most vigorously when the time comes?
Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give us any more information about when the White Paper on economic measures will be published? Will it be at the end of next week? Will the Boyle Report come with it, or after it? When will the economic debate take place? Surely the right hon. Gentleman can undertake that no legislation based on the White Paper will be brought forward until


the House has had a chance to debate it fully.

Mr. Short: First, on the timetable motion, we have still a long way to go to catch up with the Conservative record in this respect. But certainly it will be a very generous allocation of time, and discussions can take place through the usual channels about the way in which the time is allocated. I hope that we shall reach agreement on that.
The White Paper will be published towards the end of next week. I am not sure whether the Boyle Report will be published at the same time, but it will be roughly the same time.
I do not know yet when the economic debate will take place. We can discuss this through the usual channels. Certainly there will be an extended debate before the Summer Recess.

Mrs. Jeger: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider Early-Day Motion No. 551, signed by Members of all parties, suggesting that a Select Committee of this House should visit Cyprus at an early opportunity?

[That a Select Committee be appointed to visit Cyprus on a fact-finding mission and for the purpose of examining what steps the United Kingdom may reasonably take to comply with their responsibilities imposed under the Treaty of Guarantee (Command Paper 1253):

That the Select Committee shall consist of Ten Members.

That the Select Committee shall report upon their findings to this House and pay particular regard to the plight of British residents in Cyprus and any steps recommended to assist in this regard.]

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir, and, as I said last week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have been discussing this matter. I hope that we can find a way of meeting this request before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the experiment in broadcasting our proceedings finishes tomorrow? Does he not think that it would be a good idea for this to be continued until the Summer Recess? It will be an expensive business to remove the equipment, and there is widespread pub-

lic interest in what goes on in this Chamber. What is more, there is impending legislation and debates are coming forward which will also be of great interest to the public. Could we not have a discussion through the normal channels or, if necessary, a debate to see whether this experiment should be extended?

Mr. Short: I should be happy to discuss this through the usual channels. However, the Resolution of the House was for an experiment, and the experiment ends this week. I think that the House will want an opportunity for a debate on this matter while it is fresh in our minds. But there are a number of very important questions to be settled, not least the question of how we finance it. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Urwin: Does my right hon. Friend recall his several promises to me and to the House in the recent past about the early introduction of a Bill to combat labour-only sub-contracting in the construction industry? Can he now say how soon this Bill will be introduced?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. The necessary legislation—a Bill or an order—will be one of our top priorities in the next Session.

Mr. Emery: Although it could in no way take the place of a full debate on the Floor of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of referring the problems of unemployment, economic rundown and the lack of Government interest in the West Country to the new Regional Affairs Standing Committee, so that we may have a debate on these matters before the rising of the House, and will the right hon. Gentleman realise that we make this request only because we shall not get time on the Floor of the House because of the chaotic state of Government business?

Mr. Short: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for suggesting this procedure. The first debate in that Committee takes place on 9th July. It is a debate on the North-West Region. Certainly I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request for a second debate in this Committee.

Mr. Radice: Will my right hon. Friend tell us when the Government will


announce their intentions on industrial democracy?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. I cannot say when. But I undertook last week to ensure that a statement on behalf of the Government would be made in the very near future. It will be.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As between 20,000 and 30,000 people are about to lose their jobs as a result of the shortage of milk for manufacturing into butter, cheese and cream, when will the Government give time for a debate on their own statement "Food from our own resources" so that we may know what action, if any, the Government intend to take to prevent any further rundown in the dairy herd? The Leader of the House has said several times that he would draw this matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, but nothing whatever has happened.

Mr. Short: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. As I have pointed out on many occasions in the past few weeks, most of the time for general debates is now in the hands of the Opposition. For next week they have selected the plight of voluntary organisations, arms sales, post-graduate education, and so on. It is up to the Opposition to select a date for this debate.

Mr. George Cunningham: Has my right hon. Friend had reported to him the question raised yesterday about the photographing machines in the basement of the House? Can he give us any clear idea of the purpose of those machines?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. I regret that I was not in the House when this matter was raised yesterday. Perhaps I can explain. The equipment to which reference was made yesterday has been installed to augment the copying facilities in the House to meet the requirement for various documents. The pressure of parliamentary business has been growing rapidly in recent years.
Perhaps I might quote the example of one day last week, 30th June, when the Votes and Proceedings ran to 388 pages, of which 277 pages were amendments. As hon. Members will be only too well aware, there has been increasing difficulty of late in meeting the demands of the House for papers, especially given the

long and frequent sittings of Standing Committees. It became clear to me—and I gave a pledge to the House on this—that additional facilities were necessary within the House during such periods of intense parliamentary activity both on the Floor of the House and in Committee so as to ensure that business can proceed if normal supplies cannot be made available in the time.
I discussed the matter with you, Mr. Speaker, and through the usual channels. I discussed it in the Services Committee. After all these consultations, I gave authority to the staff of the House, as Leader of the House, for the equipment to be installed. It will be operated by staff acting under the authority of the House.
I accept that the equipment will restrict accommodation to some extent on the interview floor, but the essence of these facilities is the speedy supply of temporary documents. They are all temporary and they will have to be printed afterwards. As quickness of supply is the essential feature, it has been necessary to site the equipment within the precincts of the House so as to ensure that the needs of the House are met. I emphasise that only temporary documents are involved and that every document must be printed later.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As the dangers that confront this country come from abroad as well as from home, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that we can have an opportunity to debate the European Security Conference before the summit takes place?

Mr. Short: I shall certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I am afraid I do not see much prospect at the moment.

Mrs. Hayman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern amongst workers in the aircraft industry as to the fate of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill? Will my hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made next week like the statement that was promised for this week?

Mr. Short: A statement was made on Tuesday, in fact, to say that the Bill will have top priority in the next Session. It is now too late to proceed with the Bill in this Parliament.

Mr. John Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have pressed him on numerous occasions for a debate on the findings of the Procedure Committee. He will be aware that meanwhile the backlog of undebated items recommended by the Secondary Legislation Committee grows and grows, and that items of first-rate importance are now being delayed. I refer, for example, to a matter that has come up very keenly during Questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food relating to the common agricultural policy and stocktaking documents. Will the right hon. Gentleman please further his undertaking and that given, moreover, by his right hon. Friend to bring forward this debate? This is becoming essential.

Mr. Short: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have discussed this matter with him. I pay tribute to the work that is done by the Procedure Committee. However, there are many younger Members in the House who have children, and I am anxious that we should not go too far into August before we begin the Summer Recess. [HON. MEMBERS: "1st August."] Therefore, I cannot really promise that there will be a debate before the recess. However, there will be a debate on the Procedure Committee in this Session.

Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend tell us why we are not proceeding with the proposed guillotine motion on the Employment Protection Bill? May I offer my right hon. Friend some advice? If the mess-up which has occurred in the past 24 hours is not resolved my right hon. Friend will have to look for a second eleven for Standing Committee F.

Mr. Short: I do not know who has proposed a guillotine motion on the Employment Protection Bill but I certainly have not.

Mr. Cormack: Once again, I return to the subject of the Finer Report. It is now over a year since the report was published. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he promised to try to find time immediately after Christmas? We have still not had a debate on Finer. Yesterday some 5,000 people came to the House to demonstrate their concern. It is totally absurd that the Government should be clogging up the parliamentary

timetable with unnecessary legislation when matters such as this are not debated.

Mr. Short: I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman week after week that this is a most important matter to debate. In fact, one of the Private Member's motions is concerned with one-parent families. However, I do not think that that discharges the promise I gave to the House that there should be a debate. I shall ensure that there is a debate in this Session.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman afford time for a debate—or, if not a debate, at least a statement to the House from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry—on the situation at Norton Villiers Triumph? We understand that the firm is being threatened by the Government's insistence on maintaining a three-factory solution to the motor cycle industry. What steps will the Government take to ensure the viability of Norton Villiers Triumph?

Mr. Short: I realise that there are problems. I shall convey what the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and see whether he can make a statement on the matter before the recess.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the grave unemployment situation, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on unemployment before the recess? When considering the matter, will he bear in mind especially the anxieties that are felt in areas such as Leicester, where the unemployment level has been very low but where there are now the most grave anxieties because the level has increased so very much during the past few months?

Mr. Short: This is a subject which would be very relevant to the extended debate on economic affairs which I have promised before the recess.

Mr. Amery: Further to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be unacceptable that the Prime Minister should go to the summit meeting to conclude the European Security Conference without having first heard the opinion of the House? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot find time for that, will he at least assure us that there will be a


statement and a full opportunity to discuss the statement before the right hon. Gentleman ventures on any such journey?

Mr. Short: I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have said. However, I recollect that when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister there were occasions when what he has raised took place. However, I shall bear in mind what he has said.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 560 concerning the incidence of pneumoconiosis in industries other than the coal mining industry?

[That this House congratulates the National Coal Board, the National Union of Mineworkers, and the Government on the introduction of the pneumoconiosis scheme, hut, noting the incidence of this disease following employment in other industries (e.g., iron ore mining, quarrying, foundry working, the pottery industry) calls upon the Government to initiate talks between employers and unions in the appropriate industries, with the intention of establishing a parallel fund, with Government support, to ensure that all sufferers from pneumoconiosis are accorded similar treatment.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for this proposal? Will he consider providing time for this grave issue to be debated? It is a matter of social justice and equity and it should be debated in the House.

Mr. Short: I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that pneumoconiosis affects a great many people in the area which he represents and where I live. Certainly I shall convey to my right hon. Friend my hon. Friend's concern and the concern that is felt by many Members on both sides of the House as regards this problem.

Mr. Body: In view of the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), does he mean that the Goverment now think so little of their White Paper, and regard it as so undeserving of parliamentary attention, that they will not find any time for it to be debated before the recess? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, in view of his answer to my hon. Friend, that the

Opposition have now to give up their own time and to give it, as it were, to the Government so that the Government's policy on this issue can be debated?

Mr. Short: I think that the White Paper is a very good and very important document. It has been generally welcomed throughout the country, and especially in agricultural circles. Almost all the time for general debate is now in the hands of the Opposition. That has been the situation for some weeks past. We look to the Opposition to provide time for a debate on agriculture, but so far they have not done so.
I very much regret that I can find no time before the recess, but if hon. Members are willing to sit well into August—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are"]—we could debate it. We shall note what Conservative Members have said. We shall have to sit some time into August, but I am anxious that we should not sit too far into August. However, there will be some weeks left in the autumn of this year.

Mr. David Steel: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to consider the debate which took place on the composition of our delegation to the European Parliament? In the light of that, will he consider setting up a Select Committee to consider what method we should use for the selection of the delegation in future?

Mr. Short: I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. I understand that the other place is discussing this matter this afternoon. We had better await the outcome of that discussion. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. I realise that there is a problem.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of recent reports that the number of accidents to drivers of three-wheeled vehicles increases year by year, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to come to the House in the near future to tell hon. Members what the Government intend to do about the situation?

Mr. Short: I shall convey my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned


about this topic and he has expressed his anxieties on a number of occasions.

Mr. Percival: Is the right hon. Friend aware that the fact that the House has not yet debated, let alone decided, the situation in regard to the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) is giving rise to wide concern and severe criticism in the country? Is he aware that this concern is shared by many right hon. and hon. Members? When will time be allotted to discuss the position of the right hon. Member for Walsall, North?

Mr. Short: I cannot give any undertaking in that regard. This is a particularly difficult problem—one which becomes more difficult all the time since the situation changes from day to day. If there is any change in the situation, I shall inform the House. I appreciate the concern on this matter in all parts of the country, a concern which I share. There are especially difficult problems involved in the case.

Mr. Swain: Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment and will he ask him to make a statement next week denying the rumours in the national Press that the Secretary of State for the Environment is prepared to accept some of the amendments carried in the House of Lords at the initiation of the only man in both Houses who lives up to his name, Quintin Hogg?

Mr. Short: The Bill to which my hon. Friend refers is to be received from another place today. My right hon. Friend will consider the amendments made in another place and in due course will announce his view on them.

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry that the Leader of the House did not take the opportunity to refute the remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain). They amounted to a monstrous attack on my noble Friend, Lord Hailsham.
May I raise two points with the Leader of the House? Will he first give the assurance, which has been requested by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the debate on the White Paper promised for next week will precede any legislation which will arise out of the White Paper?
Secondly, I invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the subject of statements made in the House. Earlier this week the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very important statement without prior announcement to the House, in breach of our well-known practice. Today, the Prime Minister, in answer to a supplementary question, gave a lot of information which would have been very much better contained in a statement.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the information about printing equipment had nothing to do with the business for next week. That matter would have been better contained in a separate statement. I wish to confirm that the Leader of the House consulted the Opposition and that we fully support him in any efforts he makes to further the practicability of parliamentary government.

Mr. Short: On the question of attacks, if we were to refute all the attacks made on us we should have no time to do anything else. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the other place?"] There is nothing special about the other place. In regard to a debate on the White Paper, I apologise to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition for not answering that question in terms. I cannot say when a debate will take place, but we can discuss the question through the usual channels. We can see how the debate should be arranged for the convenience of both sides of the House.
I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said about statements to the House. I was present just before 12 o'clock on Tuesday morning when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave instructions to contact the House to ask for a notice to be put on the annunciator. I think that there was some fault in the communications system, although I do not know that as a fact. Perhaps we can look into the situation to examine why there was no announcement in the normal way.
In regard to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that was a proper reply to a proper Question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). There is nothing for which to apologise.
I have already dealt with the question of printing and I have set out the situation to the best of my ability.

Mr. Canavan: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion 569?

[That this House, in view of the appalling hardships faced by immigrant workers and their families, calls on the Government to strengthen the Race Relations Act and to expedite the repeal of the 1971 Immigration Act and its replacement by legislation which is not based on any racial or ethnic discrimination, so that people living in the United Kingdom shall enjoy full civil rights, including freedom from deportation.]

When can we expect legislation to strengthen the Race Relations Act and to replace the 1971 Immigration Act with legislation which is not based on any racial discrimination?

Mr. Short: Without committing the Government in detail in regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I wish to tell the House that we hope to be able to take some action in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate the Phillimore Report on contempt of court? Does he realise that this is one of seven reports from distinguished committees, including the report of the Younger Committee on privacy, still awaiting decision by the Government? Is he aware that Lord Gardiner, as Chairman of Justice, has recently criticised the delays and said that he is disturbed at the number of reports on which the Government have yet to make up their mind? Have the Government lost interest in the sound reform of the law?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. The last Labour Government had an excellent record of law reform. The reports mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman are among a number of first-rate reports which should be debated in the House. There will be a rather extended spillover in the autumn and I hope that there will be time for debates of this nature.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but the House will realise that the guillotine on amendments to the Industry Bill falls at 7.30 p.m. We must proceed.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask how the Opposition can be expected to conduct business.
Today you, Sir, refuse to take a question—and these matters are entirely in your power—from a Member of the Opposition Front Bench who wished to deal with a Private Notice Question. At the same time the Opposition were prevented from putting questions to the Prime Minister and also to the Leader of the House on a number of matters. The result was that when the House considered the Private Notice Question, Mr. Speaker felt that he had to restrict the time available and thus the Opposition were unable to put their point of view.
In short, my point of order is that if the Government insist on using Question Time as a means of making statements which have no relevance whatever to Questions tabled to them, and you, Mr. Speaker, use your discretion not to call Opposition Members on Private Notice Questions dealing with subjects of great importance, how can the Opposition carry out their duties, and how can you, Sir, protect the rights of the Opposition?

Mr. Frank Allaun: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us were surprised that a Private Notice Question on this subject was granted at all. I do not want to reflect on your view, Mr. Speaker, and in fact I support you on this occasion because I felt that you devoted adequate time to discussion of the dispute. There are hundreds of disputes taking place, and if I we are to have a long debate at Question Time on each dispute there will be no time for ony other business at all.

Mr. Speaker: I have noted what has been said. I am certain that those who are in charge of the business of the House also will have taken note of those remarks. I do not propose to make any further comment today.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday I raised a point of order with you about the installation of machinery. I realise


that the Leader of the House referred to this matter when dealing with business questions, but I should like to ask how back benchers are to have access to decision making when it is clear that the decision to install machinery was made via the consent machinery through the usual channels without any consultation with the House as a whole.
Secondly, the Services Committee has made no report to the House on what many people consider to be an important matter.
Thirdly, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to find out whether there is some machinery whereby further information on this sort of procedure can be provided—for instance, whether the trade unions have been consulted and have given their agreement to this sort of installation? It is an important matter. In the interests of open government this should be introduced.

Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to add to what the Leader of the House has said. It is for him rather than for me to consider what the hon. Member has said.

STANDING COMMITEES (MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Cyril Smith: May I ask for your help, Mr. Speaker, on the protection of the rights of minority parties in this House? I ask for your guidance on a point of order about how minority parties can have proper representation on certain Committees of the House which are being appointed and which, indeed, have been appointed. I refer to two Committees in particular. First, I refer to the Committee to deal with the Welsh Development Agency Bill on which every Conservative Member of Parliament from Wales, with the exception of one who is a Whip, has been placed. On that Committee there has been placed a Member of the Welsh National Party. I do not object to that, but the Liberal Party polled a third more votes in Wales than that party at the last General Election, and on the Second Reading of the Bill a Liberal Member took part. However, no Liberal Member of Parliament has been included on that Committee.
May I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a similar Committee for the

Scottish Development Agency Bill, again on which no Liberal Member of Parliament has been placed?
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how minority parties can ensure proper representation on Committees which directly effect their constituency work and their party work? In relation to an earlier point of order, I am seeking an extension of the rights of back-bench Members. Some hon. Members take the view that the Front Benches in this House have too many rights already.

Mr. Speaker: On the question of minority parties, I do my best to call hon. Members. Two Liberal Members were called during business questions, which proportionately might be said to be more than a fair share. I have no power to direct the Committee of Selection, but no doubt what the hon. Member has said will have been noted.

SHARMAN NEWSPAPER GROUP (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

4.12 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The current dispute between Sharman Newspaper Group and the National Graphical Association".
This is a specific matter because it is admitted that there is a dispute with, admittedly, damaging implications. It is an important matter because first of all it affects censorship and the freedom of the Press; secondly, because of the methods which admittedly have been used by the National Graphical Association; and thirdly, because, in spite of the efforts made by the Department of Employment, the dispute runs the risk of becoming a national one.
It is urgent and has become more so since the statement of the Minister of State this afternoon. Normally I would not rise to seek an Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 when conciliation machinery is being pursued. However, on this occasion it was made clear that the attempts so far made have been unsuccessful, and it seems to me—and I trust


that it will commend itself to you as well, Mr. Speaker—that both parties in this matter would greatly benefit from knowing the views of all hon. Members.
Therefore, in spite of the fact that the conciliation machinery is to be further used, I submit that this is a good reason for having such a discussion.
The only other point I would add—because it may affect your discretion, Mr. Speaker—is that I am conscious of the fact that we have a timetable motion today. However, if we do not raise these matters when they are urgent, we may not be able to raise them at all. The fact that there is a timetable motion should not inhibit the House from exercising its rights.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has made his application under Standing Order No. 9.
My answer is a procedural one. I have to decide whether to disrupt today's business or Monday's business. I am not allowed to give my reasons for my decision. The only advice I can suggest, if the matter is as important as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests and as his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) suggested earlier, is that it might be considered for debate on a Supply Day. I shall not grant the application under Standing Order No, 9.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRY BILL

[THIRD ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 23

RELEASE FROM DUTY TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION TO TRADE UNION

4.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move Amendment No. 109, in page 16, leave out lines 17 to 34 and insert:

'(1) A Minister who has served a notice under section 22 above may by notice be required to refer the matter to an advisory committee.
(2) Such a reference may be required—

(a) by the company or companies concerned, where the Minister proposes to require them to furnish information under sestion 22 above and they claim that it should not be furnished for special reasons, or
(b) by the representative of any relevant trade union, where the Minister proposes that some or all of the information furnished to him shall not be furnished to representatives of relevant trade unions for special reasons.

(3) A Minister may himself refer to an advisory committee any proposal that some or all of the information furnished to him shall not be furnished to representatives of relevant trade unions for special reasons.

(3A) Schedule (Advisory committees) shall have effect.'

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may also discuss the following amendments:

Amendment (a), in subsection (1), leave out 'an advisory committee' and insert "the Appeals Tribunal".

Amendment (b), in subsection (1), leave out 'advisory' and insert "appeal".

Amendment (g), in subsection (3), leave out "an advisory committee" and insert "the Appeals Tribunal".

Amendment (i), in subsection (3A), leave out "(Advisory Committees)" and insert "(Industry Act Appeals Tribunal)".

Amendment (k), in subsection (3A), leave out "Advisory" and insert "Appeal"

Government Amendments Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 113.

Amendment (a) to Government Amendment No. 113, leave out from second "the" to end and insert "Industry Act Appeals Tribunal".

Government Amendment No. 123.

Amendment No. 187.

New Schedule

INDUSTRY ACT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

(1) There shall be established a tribunal in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) The said tribunal (in this Act referred to as "the Appeals Tribunal") shall be called the Industry Act Appeals Tribunal.

(3) The Appeals Tribunal shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, and shall consist of a President and other members of such number as those appointing the Appeals Tribunal, acting together, shall determine.

(4) The President shall be either a person who has held judicial office under the Crown (in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) or a barrister or advocate or solicitor of at least seven years' standing, and other members shall be barristers or advocates or solicitors of at least seven years' standing.

(5) In appointing the Appeals Tribunal the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that so far as is practicable the President and the other members shall be persons with knowledge and experience which will be relevant to carrying out the Appeal Tribunal's functions.

(6) In the event of temporary absence or inability to act of the President the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Sessions, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, may appoint some other person having the appropriate qualifications under this section to act temporarily as President or may appoint any of the other members of the Appeals Tribunal to act as President, and a person or member so appointed shall when so acting have all the functions of President.

(7) If the President or any other member of the Appeals Tribunal becomes, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties, they shall jointly forthwith declare his office to be vacant and shall jointly notify the fact in such manner as acting together they think fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant.

(8) Subject to subsection (7) of this section, the appointment of the President or of any other member of the Appeals Tribunal shall be for such term as the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, may with the approval of the Treasury decide upon before making the appointment and shall be subject to such conditions as may be so decided upon.

(9) There shall be paid to the President and to the other members of the Appeals Tribunal such remuneration and allowances as the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, may with the approval of the Treasury determine.

(10) The Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, may appoint such staff to the Appeals Tribunal as they may jointly, with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers and remuneration, determine.

(11) The remuneration and allowances of the President and the other members and the staff of the Appeals Tribunal, and such other expenses of the Appeals Tribunal as the Treasury may determine, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(12) The Appeals Tribunal shall hear and determine any reference made to it under section 23 of this Act.

(13) In carrying out its functions under subsection (12) of this section the Appeals Tribunal shall subject to the provisions of section 23 of this Act and subject also to the provisions of subsection (14) of this section conduct its proceedings in such manner as it thinks fit.

(14) The Appeal Tribunal will conduct its proceedings in private except when on any particular occasion it decides, or is directed by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, acting together, to conduct its proceedings in public.

(15) The Appeals Tribunal shall as soon as may be after the end of each calendar year make a report to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, jointly on its activities during that year.

(16) The Lord Chancellor shall lay before Parliament the report referred to in subsection (15) of this section'.

Mr. Kaufman: The effect of the amendment to Clause 23 is considerable. It will probably be of most use to the House if I quickly outline the procedure that would be adopted if all the amendments were accepted, and then explain the main changes that are proposed by the amendments.
First, let me describe the procedure if the advisory committee is involved. A reference will be made, by the Minister on his own initiative, or as a result of a


union representative seeking to see disclosed information the Minister considers should not be disclosed "for special reasons", or as a result of a company seeking to have less disclosed than the Minister indicated in his proposal. If a reference is made, the committee after giving the company and trade union representatives an opportunity of making their case and considering these, must report its recommendation to the Minister. Only after this has happened may the Minister make his final decision, which he must give to the company, the union representatives and the committee, informing them of whether it accords with the committee's recommendation. Should the Minister require information to be disclosed contrary to a recommendation of the committee, he must make an order to this effect, subject to negative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament.
The procedure if there is no reference to the committee is somewhat simpler. After the end of the period set out in the preliminary notice, if there is no requirement for a reference to be made to the committee, the Minister may simply inform the company and union representatives that notice now becomes operative, and all or part of the information in it must be provided to trade union representatives.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Does my hon. Friend intend to explain the basic reason for the change in relation to the amendment, because this, while not a fundamental change, is a change of some importance. Labour Members would like to know the reason for that change in order to determine their views, because they are not entirely happy.

Mr. Kaufman: I certainly accept that my hon. Friend would like an explanation of that change. When I have concluded outlining the actual provisions, which will be of benefit to the whole House, I shall gladly outline the reasons behind the change that we are proposing.
There are three main changes that are proposed by these amendments: first, the committee is to be advisory, rather than being the final arbiter; second, the committee will be especially established, according to the new Schedule, and will not he the Central Arbitration Committee; third, there is a new and additional

form of Parliamentary control, should in any circumstances the Minister require disclosure contrary to the committee's recommendation.
The original arrangements established a division between those safeguards to be decided by the Minister and those which were to be decided by the independent committee. Under these arrangements neither could in any way affect the other's decisions.
This division of responsibility had some unfortunate rigidities. In particular, if any question of withholding information for reasons of commercial injury arose, the Minister could do nothing. It had to be settled by the company making an application to the committee even if, as might well have happened, there had been many previous such applications and it was well accepted that information of the sort in question should not be furnished to trade union representatives. This inflexibility was clearly unaktractive—and, in response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, I shall return to this question of inflexibility.
We therefore propose to introduce a more flexible and I believe more effective system by which the Minister makes the final decision on rational and special reasons for non-disclosure but has access to an advisory committee which he may be required to consult.
It is important that the independent committee which will advise the Minister is seen to be impartial, fair and effective. The Government originally proposed that the CAC should discharge the duty of deciding on cases involving what we have now called special reasons for nondisclosure. This matched the CAC's responsibilities under Clause 17 and 18 of the Employment Protection Bill. In many respects the CAC would have been a suitable decision-making body. However, since the rôle of the committee is now to be advisory rather than a determining body, it is no longer appropriate to be used. We have taken the opportunity of the change to an advisory committee to provide for a special committee whose composition and functions are specified in a new schedule. We have provided for a balanced committee chaired by a lawyer, whose members will have exactly the powers required to


determine the questions on which they are asked to advise.
My hon. Friend will have seen that workers and management are to be represented on the committee equally, one each. The composition and procedure of the new committee takes account of the criticisms made in Committee about the procedure of the CAC in this rôle. Having read those proceedings at some length, I believe that there was a great deal of force in a number of criticisms made. As a consequence of the special committee and the new schedule, we are able to delete what was Clause 23(6) which was criticised as conferring excessively wide powers on the Secretary of State.
I recognise that there were some misgivings about conferring powers on the Secretary of State contingent upon the passage of a Bill which it was not certain would be passed—although obviously we are extremely anxious that it should be—and which would have left an open end of an unsatisfactory nature had the Bill for some reason or another been frustrated.
Since we have made the committee advisory there is a possibility that its advice may be rejected. We have required the Minister, when announcing his final decision, to state whether he is in agreement with the committee's recommendations. In addition, if the Minister requires disclosure of information contrary to the committee's advice he can do so only by laying an order subject to Negative Resolution before Parliament. No disclosure of information in this category may be required while the possibility of annulment exists. This additional parliamentary control will, I hope, give assurance that we intend to treat the committee's advice carefully and seriously.
I have outlined the procedures and the main changes in the Bill which will follow from these amendments. The arrangements now proposed should be equitable to both sides of industry, more flexible and, I submit, more effective than those originally proposed.
I would like now to deal with the valid and important question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton. Like many hon. Members who were not involved in the Bill, who were mere spectators of its proceedings in Committee,

I came to it afresh, as one does as a Member of Parliament involved in a great deal of legislation but necessarily closely involved in the legislation of one's Department. Together with my senior colleagues, I examined this issue.
It seemed to me, if I may say so to my hon. Friend without seeming patronising, that one of the most engaging aspects of his contribution to the Committee proceedings was the way in which, while remaining a spokesman on Government policy, he felt free at the same time to state his views on Government policy.
It was very much my view that it was entirely wrong that on a matter of such importance, particularly for the unions, the Secretary of State should be bound by a decision of a committee, which was responsible to no one, whether he should pass on information to trade unions. Even if he had wished to do so following consideration of the matter by the independent committee, he would not have been able to do so. He would have been bound by the committee's decisions, very much in the way on which Ministers in the Conservative Government were bound by extra parliamentary bodies which they set up under various pieces of legislation and which they were then unable to influence.
It also seemed to us that there was a grave danger that the machinery of the committee would become clogged. There was no case law and no precedent. Everything started anew, ab initio. It seemed likely that although the disclosure provisions were mandatory—and that was something about which my hon. Friends and other colleagues felt strongly—the mandatory nature of the provisions might be frustrated by a blockage caused by a succession of applications to the committee. In addition, this was a one-sided committee. It was a committee to which the company applied and to which the union had no access.
We therefore decided upon a change. The change was that there should be an advisory committee to the Secretary of State and set up by him from four panels—a management panel, a workmen's panel, and either an English legal panel or a Scottish legal panel, the chairman to come from this latter panel. That committee would advise the Secretary of State. The trade union would have to


be notified of an application and would also be able to apply on its own behalf. Trade unions would have parity with companies in being able to put their case to the independent committee. Although naturally the union would not be acquainted with the full information, it would be acquainted with the nature of the information which the company was seeking to withhold. A trade union would therefore have the right, which it does not have under the Bill as drafted, to put its case to the independent committee.
The Secretary of State would then be able to consider it. If he decided contrary to the committee and wished to hand information over to the trade union regardless of the committee's advice, he would be able to do so. I believe that that is right. I do not think that the Secretary of State, a Minister of the Crown, should be bound in a decision, which is not a narrow decision like that of, for example a social security appeal tribunal, by a committee set up of his own choosing. Naturally it is right, if the Secretary of State chooses to disregard the committee, that he should be answerable for his disregard.
We have therefore said in the final stage that if the Secretary of State decided to set aside the advice of the committee and to hand over the information to a trade union, Parliament should have the right to examine that decision through the Negative Resolution procedure and the Secretary of State should be answerable to Parliament rather than be bound by an independent committee which he has established.

Mr. Heffer: May I ask a question about the factual position? The committee will be drawn from the employers' panel, the work force panel and the legal panel. Does that mean that there will be one from each panel, so that there is a total of three members? I see that my hon. Friend is indicating that it does mean that. Who will be the chairman? Will it be the legal man? This is crucial, because if there is an anti-union chairman from the legal profession nothing put forward by the trade unions will be accepted. On the other hand, if it is an anti-employer legal man who dislikes employers' organisations, the employers will never get a decision in their favour.

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is right to probe the issue. It is as well, since it is an important innovation, that it should be clarified and queried. The provision in the Bill as we intend, if the House consents to amend it, is clear. There will be a management member and a workers' member. There will be an equal balance between management and unions and the lawyer will be the chairman—

Mr. James Dempsey: Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie) rose—

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps I may complete my sentence. I quite understand the fear of my right hon. Friend that the committee might be overbalanced if there were a biased chairman one way or the other, as there easily could be. That is a problem we always face. I faced it in the Department of the Environment when I was considering appointments to the rent assessment committees. It is because I recognise that that I regard as of the utmost importance the fact that the Secretary of State will not be bound by the committee. If he were so bound, as he was in the Bill as originally drafted, then I can assure my hon. Friend that I would have been slightly more neurotic about the way it was made out because, like him and other of my hon. Friends, I have no great love for lawyers and I do not believe that they are great repositories of wisdom.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire) rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I have a great love for the hon. Gentleman but an even greater love for finishing my sentences before giving way. I promised to give way to my hon. Friend before concluding. This is an important matter. I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for Walton that under the original proposal one would have had no greater confidence that the committee would come to a right and fair decision but the Secretary of State would have been bound by its decision, even with that lack of confidence. The great protection of this present procedure against a feeling that the lawyer might balance one way or the other is, first, the fact that the Secretary of State need not be bound by the decision of the court and may still pass on


the information to the trade union; and, secondly, that if he sets aside the decission and passes on the information to the trade union, he has to explain himself to Parliament. That seems to me absolutely right, first because discretion lies in the hands of a Minister of the Crown responsible to Parliament and, secondly, because Parliament is the body which, in the end, will decide.

Mr. Tom King: Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)
 rose—

Mr. Dempsey: As I understand it, we are discussing a matter which would be regarded as of commercial confidentiality in deciding whether that information should be released. I cannot understand why it is necessary to have a lawyer there at all to tell people such as myself, who have had practical business experience, whether it is wise to disclose this information. I would like my hon. Friend to develop his argument on why there is any necessity at all to have a legal representative there, far less in the chair.

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend's simple questions are always more difficult to answer than more complicated ones. It is received wisdom that lawyers make good, impartial chairmen because they know the law. It might well be that lawyers and others would make equally impartial chairmen. I have in my constituency a wide range of people in whom I would have great confidence and therefore I am not passionate on that. It is received wisdom and I believe my hon. Friend would be right to be suspicious if there were not to be a representative of both workers and employers. But I do not think it is a matter on which one need be overly concerned. I will give way to the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire and then to the hon. Member for Bridgwater.

Mr. Fairbairn: May I ask the Under-Secretary two questions? First, he says that he does not have much fondness or feeling for lawyers. I thought that Socialists regarded all men as their brothers regardless of their occupation. Perhaps partiality is at last creeping into the Labour Party. But leaving that aside, the function of this committee, or whatever one might call it, must surely be a simple matter of the interpretation of the law and nothing else under this clause—

whether the release of the information would be substantially prejudicial to people's interests. What has that to do with people not qualified in the interpretation of the law?

Mr. Kaufman: On the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, I have the utmost brotherly feeling for lawyers as people but when it comes to lawyers as lawyers, my feelings are less brotherly. All men are my brothers but some are more brotherly than others. Industrial matters, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, had a great deal to say during the passage of the Industrial Relations Bill, are not matters simply for law courts. Industrial matters are matters of flesh and blood, and those who are involved in them, workers and management, have a right to be heard and, indeed, it is necessary to hear from them. This is not a legal situation.
The trouble with the ramshackle machinery that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to erect to deal with such matters is that of having an obsession with dragging lawyers into everything, like the mad National Industrial Relations Court they set up, which caused precisely the same problems for their Government as I fear the committee as originally envisaged might have caused us had we proceeded with it—though I must confess their Government suffered on a far larger scale than we would have suffered.

Mr. Tom King: As I understand what the Under-Secretary has said—that the protection against a prejudiced chairman of the committee who might be biased one way or the other is that the committee's decision can be overriden by the Secretary of State—it carries the implication that the man who can be guaranteed at all times, without any political thought at all, to be totally unbiased is the Secretary of State. It seems a very odd doctrine.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I was saying. I said that the Secretary of State is the Minister in charge of this legislation. That is why we believe that the checks and balances in this situation are very fairly placed. If the Secretary of State exercises his discretion in a way which sets aside a decision of the committee, he has to lay an order, and the Secretary of


State's decision can be debated by Parliament. The great glory of our parliamentary democracy is that Ministers are answerable to Parliament. I believe that they should be, and that they should not be bound by an independent committee of their own appointment. That is why I believe—although I said yesterday that this whole machinery is inevitably cumbersome—that we have the checks and balances about right. I very much hope the House will agree with these Government amendments.

Question proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I understand that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. John Stanley) wishes to divide on an amendment. Will he please move it now?

Mr. John Stanley: I beg to move Amendment (a) to the proposed Amendment, in subsection (1) leave out 'an advisory committee' and insert 'the Appeals Tribunal'.
There is not and never has been any difference between the Opposition and the Government as to the basic intentions of Clause 23. We have been united in seeking to ensure that whatever procedure is adopted in that clause provides us with the means, both legally and procedurally, of having a watertight system for safeguarding commercially confidential information. We are talking in essence about two very different routes to the same end—about, on the one hand, proceeding down the Government's advisory committee road or, alternativeley, proceeding down our own road of an industrial appeals tribunal.
Clearly it is not a simple matter of procedures as far as industry is concerned. This is no academic, administrative debate because it is incumbent upon us to get Clause 23 right. If we fail to do so and create a situation in which commercially confidential information can be gratuitously leaked, we shall end up by jeopardising the prospects of individual companies and those employed in them. This is a vital matter which directly affects the bread and butter and the living standards of possibly many thousands of employees.
During the Committee stage we spent, by my calculations, a total of 11 hours debating this particular matter and I

would certainly acknowledge that we in no way wholly wasted our time in doing so. I would be the first to acknowledge that the Government—and I do not know whether it was the outgoing or incoming Minister in the Department who was concerned, or possibly both—have certainly displayed flexibility in considering our objections and the criticisms we made during the Standing Committee proceedings.
The Government have, for example, accepted our case that it was wholly inappropriate to use the Central Arbitration Committee of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service that is being set up under the Employment Protection Bill. They also accepted our criticisms of subsection (6) of Clause 23 in the original Bill, which gave Ministers carte blanche to establish appeal bodies under existing enactments or not simply by laying orders. They should be able to set up what we regard as courts without passing additional legislation.
In addition, the Government have accepted our criticism that people were inadequately qualified to take decisions on commercial disclosure as members of the Central Arbitration Committee. The qualification was that they should be experienced in industrial relations, and we did not see that that was necessarily a suitable qualification for the decisions that that appeal body would take. We welcome the Government's alteration of the composition of the advisory committee to provide a mix of lawyers and those from both sides of industry with experience, not in industrial relations but in industrial affairs, which we accept as a much wider qualification.
While it is true that the Government have accepted some of the substantial points of detail in the objections we put forward in Committee, it is also the case that they have not accepted the arguments of principle that we advanced against the way in which they were trying to proceed. We come back in these Report proceedings with two major areas of objection in principle that we continue to see even in the amended proposals that the Government have brought forward.
First, without doubt a huge degree of discretionary power is given to Ministers, even under the new proposal. Concern about that degree of discretionary power


has been expressed on both sides of the House today. The Under-Secretary gave examples of how that power might be used. He said that it would be used by Ministers overruling a decision by the committee to withhold the information. The Minister might say that it should be passed on to trade union representatives. But—and I am not sure that all hon. Members are aware of this—the Minister can overrule the committee both ways. In other words, if the committee decides that the information should not be withheld, it is open to Ministers under the Bill to rule, against the committee's advice, that it should be withheld. Here I comment on what the Minister said at the end of his speech. There is in fact no statutory instrument laid before the House, unless the Minister is overruling a committee's decision decides against its advice that the information should be disclosed.
Enormous discretionary power for Ministers is still present in the Bill. Our original criticism of the clause concerned ministerial discretion. Previously our fears were that the ministerial discretion might be used to set up appeal bodies under subsection (6) which would not be fully independent or fully competent to do the job. I agree that the Government have eliminated that area of ministerial discretion, but they have replaced it by an equally potent area of ministerial discretion—Minister's ability to overrule the judgement of the advisory committee.
Let us see how the advisory committee will consider the individual cases that will go to it. First, there will be a reference, which can be made by Ministers or the company or trade unions, to an advisory committee comprising only three people. As Labour Members have already highlighted, the composition of the committee and the outlook of those three people, will be fundamental. They will be critically important to seeing that there is fair play. Two of the members of the committee will be appointed by Ministers solely on Ministers' own authority. Only the lawyer member of the committee will be appointed by the Minister in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor.
4.45 p.m.
The advisory committee considers the case brought to it and then tenders its

advice to the Minister, who is free to accept or reject that advice. The advice may be either way. It may be a recommendation that the information should be withheld or that it may be published and given to representatives of trade unions. The Minister can overrule the committee. If he does, it is only if his final decision is that the information should be published, when the committee has recommended that it should be withheld, that his decision is subject to a Negative Resolution order in the House.
Effectively, Parliament is being asked to act as appeal body against a ministerial decision. The Under-Secretary has laid great stress yesterday and today on what he regards as the important parliamentary safeguard of the Negative Resolution procedure if the Minister overrules the advice of the Committee. I do not suggest that hon. Members cannot successfully harry Ministers when a controversial statutory instrument is placed before the House. But we are considering a statutory instrument dealing with a particular type of subject matter, in which the Negative Resolution procedure will be singularly ineffective, because the statutory instrument will say that a certain amount of information, which cannot be described in any detail in it, will be passed on to trade union representatives. How on earth can a company successfully contest that sort of statutory instrument? How can hon. Members take a factual view on it when we are dealing with highly classified, commercially confidential information?
The Negative Resolution safeguard, of which the Government have made so much, is a sop. It is hardly worth having, because by definition the information which we are discussing, and which is the subject of the statutory instrument, cannot be made available to hon. Members on either side. Therefore, there is no possibility of the company concerned properly informing hon. Members of the nature of the information and giving them a factual basis on which to decide whether to negative the statutory instrument.
I come to the second objection that we made in Committee. Here, too, the Government amendments do not begin to meet our point. We have referred to the fundamental constitutional principle that the judiciary should be kept fully independent


of the executive. Our original objection was that the Central Arbitration Committee was being asked to perform what was in our view a judicial function under the clause as originally drafted—to decide on the grounds laid down in the measure whether the information should be released to trade union representatives. We maintained in Committee that it was improper for a body such as the Central Arbitration Committee, a body within the executive, to perform that judicial rôle.
The clause as it has been redrafted confuses to an even greater extent the judicial and executive functions, because now it is not merely an arm's-length committee carrying out the judicial function but the executive, Ministers themselves. I suppose that the Government will argue—indeed, they began to argue in answer to interventions by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)—that the real rôle of the advisory committee is an administrative rôle, not a judicial rôle at all. The Bill has been amended to try to convey that impression. I suggest that it has been amended misleadingly to try to convey that impression erroneously.
The Government suggest that the advisory committee is dealing with a matter in the same way as an advisory committee might advise the Secretary of State for the Environment in dealing with a matter such as a planning appeal. They suggest that it is art administrative matter, legitimately the subject of ministerial discretion.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the system of planning appeals is a semi-judicial process and that the secretary of State has a semi-judicial function in deciding on appeals?

Mr. Stanley: The way in which planning appeals and procedures, leading to a decision, are dictated follows a semi-legal form, but under the Town and Country Planning Acts this is delegated authority given to the Minister to exercise his perfectly legitimate executive discretion. We are talking about a different situation. The Government have acknowledged the semi-judicial—we would say, fully judicial—functions of the advisory committee by proposing to appoint lawyers as the chairman and one-third of the membership.

Sir Raymond Gower: Can my hon. Friend explain the term "semi-

judicial". I have never heard of it before. I have heard of quasi-judicial, but there is no such thing as semi-judicial.

Mr. Stanley: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I meant to say quasi-judicial, but the function being performed here is a fully judicial function and is not quasi-judicial.
I refer the House to Government Amendment No. 109 which is being discussed with our amendment. The wording of that amendment demonstrates that the issue before the advisory committee, whether the case is brought by a trade union, a company or a Minister, will be whether the "special reasons" are valid. Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of that amendment reads that a reference to the committee may be required by a company
where the Minister proposes to require them to furnish information under section 22 above and they claim that it should not be furnished for special reasons.
A reference may be made by the representative of a relevant trade union
where the Minister proposes that some or all of the information furnished to him shall not be furnished to representatives of relevant trade unions for special reasons.
In subsection (3) of the amendment, we read,
A Minister may himself refer to an advisory committee any proposal that some or all of the information furnished to him shall not be furnished to representatives of relevant trade unions for special reasons.
In every case where there is a reference to the advisory committee, the special reasons will be at issue.
Clearly the function is a judicial one and Ministers are taking it upon themselves to operate the law as well as to legislate. They have substantial discretionary powers and are effectively putting themselves in the position of being members of the judiciary.
Our alternative proposals are set out in Amendment No. 187 under which we would establish an appeals tribunal which would not be as cumbersome as the appeals system provided for in the Bill. There is a clear requirement in the Bill for a body to hear contested disclosure of information cases. The key characteristic of such a body must be its independence of the Government and the only way this can be achieved is to make


it part of the judiciary. It must be able to carry out, within the judiciary, its limited technical and expert functions in deciding disclosure appeals.
The Lands Tribunal provides an exact precedent for the sort of body we have in mind. It is firmly within the judiciary and carries out a limited, expert and technical function in land valuation and compensation. Our amendment is modelled on the Lands Tribunal Act passed by a Labour Government in 1949. There would be no doubt about its political independence—which is as important as anything—because its members would he appointed by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. Nor is there any reason to doubt the ability of these members to deal competently with the disclosure cases. Members would be appointed with regard to relevant experience and knowledge of matters likely to come before them and, in the Standing Committee I referred to the recent case of Hoffman-La Roche v. the Department of Trade and Industry—a case specifically concerned with the release of commercially confidential information—to show that the legal profession is wholly competent to deal with such matters.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The difficulty with the Opposition's proposal is that public money may be involved in this matter and their suggestion would take away all control from this House. At least Ministers are responsible to the House.

Mr. Stanley: We believe that it is the function of the House to legislate and to hold the executive accountable to the House. The rôle we see being performed under Clause 23 is the judicial rôle of deciding whether the special reasons hold good in particular cases.
I am sorry that, because of the disgraceful guillotine and very short period of time allowed for the Report stage, we were not able to discuss the Government's "special reasons" amendment yesterday. The Government have never contested the practicability of the tribunal we propose and I do not believe it can be argued against on practical grounds. It is a basic matter of principle that we should

have a body outside the executive. It is wholly wrong in principle that a body which is effectively a court should be set up in the executive. It is wholly wrong in principle that a Minister should arrogate to himself the rôle and functions of a member of the judiciary. The result of Ministers taking these sweeping and discretionary powers against which there is no effective right of appeal will be enormously to increase the uncertainty of companies and trade unions.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is getting into a bit of a logical fix. He is saying that the Opposition want the appeal body to be a court and consequently the Government are getting involved in a judicial situation. We are doing so only if we want the body to be a court, and we do not want that.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: It is not a question of who wants it to be a court and who does not. As the Bill is drafted, and as it will be redrafted by the Government amendments, the advisory committee will perform a judicial function. If the Under-Secretary is denying that that is so, why have the Government brought forward their "special reasons" amendment? Those are the criteria against which individual cases are to be judged. If, as the Under-Secretary maintains, there is no judicial rôle here, the special reasons will be superfluous.
What the Government are doing will lead to enormous uncertainty for the companies and the trade unions. Since there will be an element of ministerial discretion by which the Secretary of State can freely override the judgment of the Committee, there can be no certainty for any company that the grounds for withholding information, which are spelled out in the Bill under the "special reasons" provision, will be adhered to or ignored by the Minister. The special reasons will apply only if the Minister considers that they should. Amendment No. 105 of yesterday, which we were unable to debate, made that clear.
Neither companies nor trade unions can be certain that the powers will be used without political bias or partially by a Government, whatever its political complexion. The powers ultimately belong to Ministers, and Ministers are


political and not judicial animals. Neither side of the House should be mollified or satisfied by the assurance, which I am sure the Under-Secretary will give, that these powers will be exercised reasonably, responsibility and fairly by the present administration. We are not legislating for this set of Ministers or for this Government. We are legislating for any Minister and any Government, and the Government's amendments make it possible for Minister to exercise judicial powers on a discretionary and, therefore, potentially arbitrary basis.
For 300 years successive British Parliaments have jealously guarded the principle that executive and judicial functions should be kept clearly separate, and I hope that the House will show that its jealousy of that principle is in no way dimmed and will support our amendment.

Mr. Heffer: This is a most complicated matter. Anyone who pretends that he has an easy answer to it is talking rubbish as those of us who debated the matter at great length in Committee know.
The information in question could be of a highly confidential commercial nature. The Government, I know, in urging that this information should be given to trade unionists, realise that the commercial interests of a firm could be damaged merely by the information becoming known. They do not intend it to be given to the general public and the mass of the workers in the industry concerned. It is difficult to know precisely where to draw the line between what is confidential and what is not. Perhaps a company would argue that information was confidential and should not be given to the unions when it was not confidential at all. We therefore are thrown back on defining the special reasons.
It has never been said that all information would be given freely and without hindrance. There are two areas in which it is recognised that information could be particularly sensitive. The first concerns the national interest and involves questions of security and so on, and the second concerns information of a sensitive commercial nature.
I am not completely satisfied with the Under-Secretary's explanation but I would never support the Opposition

amendments. We have examined this matter many times and we are not completely happy with it. Nevertheless we are prepared to give the proposals a chance and see what happens. In practice we shall see whether the system works sensibly and intelligently, and if it does not, that is a matter which must be pursued. I have no doubt that the trade unions and employers will take the matter up if necessary with the advisory committee.
I do not accept the Opposition contention that there should be an appeals tribunal consisting of
barristers or advocates or solicitors of at least seven years' standing.
I do not see why someone in that category should be able to decide any more intelligently what is commercially sensitive information than a trade unionist, an employer's representative, a dustman or the charlady who cleans this House. I do not understand why lawyers should be regarded as being all-knowing, and in saying that I stress that I am not "anti-lawyer".
The Under-Secretary said that we were dealing with individuals in industry, and that sums up the thinking of the trade union movement. It wants this information because it concerns the lives of the work people, who have a right to that information as it affects their future. With it they can adopt a more positive approach to industrial matters, industrial relations and the industry in which they work. Whether they should get the information should not be determined by a group of lawyers. If we are to have an advisory committee, it should be made up of representatives of the work force, the employers' organisations and—I will accept for the moment—legal people.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested that there might be substantial validity in our proposal because the trade union representative might be biased in favour of greater disclosure. I am not trying to put words into the hon. Gentleman's mouth. He has explained why trade unions have a natural interest in this aspect and therefore may not be as impartial as lawyers. Therefore, lawyers may have an advantage, quite apart from the legal training aspect, because they are not directly concerned.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has answered the point himself. If there is one trade unionist and one representative of the employers' organisation, and the employers' organisation representative says, "No, this should not be given to the trade union", then the lawyer, precisely for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggests, will come down on the side of not giving the information to the trade unionists. That is what I fear and that is why I am not entirely happy. I shall give it a go. We shall look at it and hope that it will work out in an unbiased fashion. Even with this set-up, I am afraid that it is likely to be more biased against trade unionists getting information than if the composition were different. That is precisely the point I am making.

Mr. Keith Stainton: A relevant point that we tried to develop in Committee was that, right from the start, the trade union representative is at a great disadvantage because he is not privy to the nature of the proceedings and does not know the case to argue before the committee. He is pleading in the dark.

Mr. Heffer: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) has experience of appeals tribunals of any kind. For a considerable time I was a member of the appeals tribunal concerned with national insurance legislation. The position was that all the information was given to the tribunal. It was possible to have people brought before it, and queries were raised at the local offices, and so on, before a decision was given.
Trade unionists are not unintelligent. Surely they would be able, having looked at the information available, to decide accordingly. They would be privy to information to which we would not be privy. If they are not privy to the information, it would be absolutely absurd to have a committee at all.

Mr. Stainton: The whole issue is whether they should have access to that information. Therefore, how can they be privy to it in order to argue their case when the committee has to decide whether they should have it? This is a very important point.

Mr. Heffer: I was talking about the composition of the committee. The hon. Gentleman is now talking about the trade unionists and the type of information that will be disclosed. I accept that this is a difficult problem. Indeed, that is why the committee must have a trade union representative who will know what the arguments and the information are about and will then be able to say whether such information should be given in view of its highly sensitive commercial or other nature.
I accept that some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman have validity. I accept the argument about the CAC. I accept that this is not a good idea. I am glad that we have got it away from that committee, first, because it will have enough to do anyway without being cluttered up with arguments about whether information should be given through the provisions of the Industry Bill. It is right to have a separate body. I do not agree with the concept of an appeal tribunal made up of various lawyers, barristers, and so on.
I am not entirely happy with the proposals made by the Government. I helped to draft the original Bill. I still feel that perhaps there is a great deal to be gained from having a separate committee, not the CAC, to look at the matter as was originally suggested. However, I suggest that we should give it a go and look at it on the basis of experience.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: Would the hon. Member feel equally happy about the composition of the appeal committee regardless of which political party were in government at the time?

Mr. Heffer: This is a hardy annual that is always raised. Any Government at any time who are dissatisfied with legislation introduced by a previous Government can and do change that legislation. They may have to operate for a period under the previous legislation, but, if they find that that is not helpful because they have won an election on a certain point of view and that is what the people are expecting them to carry out, obviously they change the legislation. Every politician is politically biased. If not, he would belong to an amorphous group known as "the party of non-politicians". Who would get elected to the House of


Commons on the politically biased policy of being non-politicians? This is not a logical situation. We all belong to political parties and we support certain legislation based upon our election manifestos.
Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing does not worry me at all. If the Tories, God forbid, ever came into power again and had to carry out the policies laid down in the Industry Bill, I have the feeling that, after a period of time, if it were not in line with their political philosophy, they would change it. I have no doubt that that would be the position.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: This is not the first time in my life that I have not been impressed by the case put by the Government or by the Opposition Front Bench on this matter. I am not saying that both hon. Gentlemen did not present their cases well, but I do not think that this matter has been sufficiently thought out, because it covers a very sensitive area. We are moving into new ground.
I largely agreed with much of the reasoning of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). However, I disagreed with him when he suggested that we should allow this matter to be tested and that time would prove whether it was successful. That is a dangerous doctrine because often these things work out totally differently from the way in which we expect. They might work out to the disadvantage of the viewpoint expressed by the hon. Member for Walton. Indeed I suspect that that will be the case. Therefore, we should look more closely at the matter.
In view of the Under-Secretary's presentation of the case today, I do not think that the Government can possibly have thought the matter through. They have virtually appointed the House as the final court of appeal for what will be a dispute between parties. How can it be appropriate for this House to consider these particular matters? A firm which has commercially sensitive information, which even the trade union may not understand is commercially sensitive, will, if the Minister has made an order or decided not to accept the advisory committee's advice, have to come here as a final court of appeal. But how on

earth can that commercial company allow Members of Parliament to know what it is that is commercially sensitive to enable individual Members to make a judgment on that point? It is an absolute nonsense. Although it may sound marvellous to uninstructed listeners, it may sound as though this is preserving the powers of this great democratic institution, it is a nonsense when we consider the matter with which we are actually dealing.
I cannot accept the view put forward from the Opposition Front Bench that this is a judicial matter and that a tribunal constituted of lawyers should consider it. That would not be appropriate in this sensitive sphere. We have embarked upon something of the nature of a quasi-judicial body, which is completely different from a planning tribunal. Though itself a quasi-judicial body, a planning tribunal is subject to the law of the land. Prerogative writs apply. If a quasi-judicial tribunal such as a planning tribunal goes wrong in law, the matter can be transferred to the High Court. Therefore, such bodies are independent on matters of fact, but not on matters of law.
It would be impossible to transfer a matter of this kind to the High Court and have a judge decide it, because the commercial firm concerned would have to reveal its secrets or the reasons why the information is sensitive to that court, which necessarily has to sit in public. Therefore, we are considering something totally different and have not yet struck the right note.
My hon. Friends and I suggest, in the form of an amendment, that this body should be an appeal committee, not an advisory committee. The advantage of its being an appeal committee is that it prevents the Minister being the judge in his own cause. That is very important. Ministers are highly charged political animals. One can anticipate that, whereas the present incumbents in office may think it highly desirable that they should finally decide these matters, they may find that somebody at present on this side of the House with totally different views would be taking most of the decisions. Therefore, that is inappropriate.
Another reason is that, if it is an appeal committee and it is known that it will decide important and sensitive matters,


we are likely to have highly responsible and skilled people appointed to it. The greater its powers, the more likely the Minister is to take great care over appointments to it. If it were an appeal committee, totally different from what is suggested by the Opposition, we could have a highly responsible and experienced trade unionist, a highly responsible and experienced employer and, one would hope, a senior and responsible barrister or solicitor in the chair.
There are advantages in having a lawyer serving on such a committee. After all, what is envisaged is a dispute between two conflicting bodies—men of flesh and blood. If they have a dispute, somebody has to decide it.
There are two basic advantages in having a lawyer on the committee. The trained lawyer is accustomed to assessing both sides of an argument. This may be to his disadvantage in a political sphere, but it is to his advantage in a judicial or quasi-judicial sphere.
The trained lawyer is also very good at articulating the conclusions reached by a committee. We may have highly skilled and knowledgeable people in industry serving on the commitee as representatives of the trade unions and employers, but they may be no match for the lawyer in articulating what they decide. In my view, based on such experience as I have in this sphere, a highly responsible committed of this kind would agree in nine cases out of ten.

Mr. Tom Litterick: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hooson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House can draw on their own experience. My experience is that a body of this kind, composed of a highly experienced member of one side of industry, a highly experienced member of the other side of industry and a lawyer in the centre, is likely in almost every case to reach the same conclusion.
In considering this body we must remember that the only guidance afforded to it is the term "special reasons". That would have to be interpreted over a long

period. A magistrate or anybody who has knowledge of the law knows that there is an interpretation of "special reasons" in the Road Traffic Act. But "special reasons" has to be interpreted in the context of this legislation.
The hon. Member for Walton pointed out that we are dealing with difficult matters in the sense that there is no precedent for evolving an interpretation of "special reasons" in this sphere. That is why, if this advisory committee were to be changed in kind and, I hope, improved in quality from what was contemplated, we might have a body ideal for this purpose. I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick).

Mr. Litterick: My point has almost been lost in the welter of highly articulate words which have flowed from the hon. and learned Gentleman. A few hundred words ago the hon. and learned Gentleman characterised his hypothetical body as being highly responsible. We are talking about words—at least the hon. and learned Gentleman was—their use, and people's ability to use them. When he referred to this highly responsible body, did he mean it in the sloppy sense of a lot of dignified people or in a precisely technical sense?

Mr. Hooson: I meant it in a precisely technical sense. I should have thought that any responsible Minister appointing people in this sphere would appreciate that it was important that both the trade unions and the employers should have faith in the committee. Therefore, it would be important for him to appoint people who were respected and had a great deal of responsibility in their respective spheres.
Obviously with this kind of development in the law and the change in our attitude towards the sharing of information between both sides of industry, it is important that, whether this be an appeal committee as opposed to an advisory committee, highly responsible people in the technical sense should be appointed to it. I do not mean dignified gentlemen with bowler hats in this instance, although I have nothing against bowler hats as such. I do not think that we have quite got the right answer to the problem and it is important that we should try to get it.

Mr. Palmer: I did not have the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill in detail. Indeed, I did not have the advantage of hearing my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he introduced the amendment. What struck me, listening to the arguments from both above and below the Gangway opposite, was how academic the whole matter has become. We are dealing with industry which makes things and in which people are employed. Therefore, the issues are essentially practical.
My experience of asking for information is that one needs to know what information is available before asking for it. This was well illustrated by the experience of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I have the privilege to be Chairman, when it wanted from the Government the report of the Vintner Committee which looked into the choice of reactor in this country. That was refused to the Select Committee on the ground that the Government had given an undertaking not to release it, presumably even to a Select Committee, because it contained delicate commercial information.
5.30 p.m.
Government supporters have referred to the possible partiality of Ministers. Information of a delicate commercial nature was refused in the first place by a Conservative Minister and was refused later by a Labour Minister. The Department behaved in the same way. It is important that the Department should do so. When the Bill becomes an Act and its provisions are put into effect a system of precedent and experience will be built up in the Department as to what matters and what does not matter.
The decision should be left with the Minister, although in practice it will be left to the Minister's expert assistants who will advise him. As a result of their experience they will know what is important and what is genuinely sensitive. That judgment can be challenged. As a result of the amendment it would be possible for anyone, whether trade union or employer, to request that the matter be reconsidered. It will be possible for the Minister to put the matter to an advisory body. He will choose that advisory body according to the nature of the business of the company and the type of information involved.
The proposal in the Government amendment to deal with the difficulty is practical and provides the common sense solution in those circumstances. With all respect to lawyers, that is the reason why this proposal does not appeal to them.

Mr. Fairbairn: I compliment the Under-Secretary on the fact that the Government have listened to our case. He read the arguments which were made in Committee and has to some extent understood them. Unfortunately, not being a lawyer, he has failed to understand the judgment of Solomon.
With that remarkable capacity for misunderstanding that judgment he has done what all people in those circumstances do. He has divided the baby in equal halves—between the original proposition, which was outrageous, and the criticisms of it, which were intelligently marshalled in Committee. Under the pretence of going half way with the mother, and, no doubt, the baby, the duty of appointing the lawyers has at last been granted to an independent person, as if that alone cured the fundamental defects of this procedure.
We are not dealing with an appeal from a minor road traffic offence. We are dealing with the question of whether the disclosure of information of great sensitivity by enormous organisations will cause damage. This machinery must deal with important questions. The Minister, an executive politician, and his advisers start off by making a judgment in law. This is a legislature. We pass laws. We do not pass menus, from which we can choose what we like. A law is a law.
If the Government wish to say that they will appoint advisers to decide in every case whether or not the information should be disclosed for any reason they care to think up, that is one interpretation. That is not what the Bill says. It says that the Minister shall make an interpretation in law of whether furnishing the information would be undesirable in the national interest. That is a matter of absolute interpretation. It has nothing to do with the Minister. He must decide whether he can do so without contravening any prohibition. Again, that is a matter of law.
Against that there is an appeal. To whom do we appeal? We appeal to the Minister. With respect, the hon. and


learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) echoed many of the arguments which I put in Committee. The first appeal is to the Minister. He is judge in the first case. He then becomes the court of appeal. That procedure is laid down in Clause 22(5).
There is the ridiculous proposition that the matter be transferred to any advisory committee, which has to interpret a matter of law. According to the amendments passed yesterday, it must decide whether the information was communicated to the company or companies in confidence or was obtained in consequence of a confidence. What connection that has with a committee of people who have nothing to do with the interpretation of a statute, I do not know.
There is the proviso whether the disclosure could cause substantial injury to the undertaking. What does "substantial" mean? The word "substantial" is chosen in this Bill. The well-known definition of the word "substantial" occurred in the case of Terry Motors v. Rinder, when it was held that it was a word of no fixed meaning, and was an unsatisfactory medium for carrying the idea of any ascertainable proportion of the whole. The advisory body must say whether the disclosure could cause substantial injury to a substantial number of employees in the undertaking. It is thought fit that the committee should make that judgment in law.
I first criticise the composition of the committee. If we wish a judgment to be made impartially we do not, for instance, on a Northern Ireland matter, appoint a member of the UDA and a member of the IRA, and ask the Lord Chancellor to put a judge between them. We do not say that that will constitute an impartial committee because the persons serving on it are so partial that they will be impartial. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) gave the game away. He said that he was terrified that the referee might belong to one side or the other. He includes in his concept the idea of taking sides and the award of a prize to one side or the other. That is not what this is about. The wounds and the damage to people, whether they are earning wages or salaries or whether they are shoppers or other members of the community, will

be just as disastrous if the judgment is made wrongly.
The advisory committee should be composed of people who are competent to make impartial decisions. The responsibility should not be given to those who are partial to one or other side of industry. That is not the purpose of this measure.
This is a question of the disclosure of commercial information which would hurt the national interest or those employed in industries, or a substantial number of employees.

Mr. Litterick: The implication of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is that there is ipso facto in the mind of a lawyer a species of objectivity which is grafted on to him by reason of his legal training and to no other type of human being. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer. He sits on one side of the House of Commons. As a lawyer, he is partial by definition. Therefore, by reason for his legal training, he could not pose as an objective judge of anything. I wish he would realise that fact of his life and apply it as a more general fact to his argument.

Mr. Fairbairn: I may be an impartial judge of nothing, but I know rubbish when I hear it. The Prime Minister obtained the services of Lord Hailsham, a member of the other place, to defend him, so as to demonstrate his impartiality. Let us keep off the subject of lawyers. I have not yet mentioned that question.
It is foolish to start by deliberately creating a doubly partial body and appointing a referee in the middle of it. I do not want to stick up for the legal profession, but lawyers have certain advantages and they are trained to be impartial. It may be said that it is not possible for me, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, to be impartial, but I have represented far more Socialists than Conservatives in the course of my criminal and civil practice, and I have never shown the slightest partiality. I regret to say that the conviction rate amongst my Socialist clients is higher than it is amongst my Conservative clients.
The body must be a high-powered one. I think that there should be lawyers on it. The members should not be partial. They should be impartial judges because they have to make a judgment of law.


The procedure is not about a trade union saying that it wants the information, whether it be good or bad for anyone else, and the employers saying that the information will not be supplied, good or bad for anyone else, so that the job of the man in the middle is to make a decision.
I come to the fallacies. It is necessary to argue the case whether the information for special reasons should be withheld without being able to disclose that information openly, just to the tribunal—it has to be done in secret—and, secondly, to the side which is arguing the opposite case. That is a fundamental fallacy, and I do not see how the procedure can work.
Next, there is no appeal, Suppose the tribunal gets the answer totally wrong. The ground has now moved to "special reasons", and anyone with the slightest knowledge of that expression will know that the concept "special reasons" has been adopted into road traffic law, criminal law, consistorial law, election law and the law of damages. It is a very difficult concept, and some of the greatest minds the country has produced have gone to great lengths to try to define it. To get a couple of amateurs of opposite poles of view, a Tory on one side and a Socialist on the other, with a lawyer in between to decide, is farcical.
There is no appeal in law from that procedure. What happens if it is decided that the special reason is that the case is heard on Friday 30th April? What appeal has the party against that judgment? At last there is to be a judgment, but what is to be the appeal against a wrong interpretation of the Act? There is not one. How can one appeal against it to the appeal court in either country if the information cannot be disclosed and if the basis of the argument of one side has not been allowed to be presented?
I compliment the Under-Secretary of State on attempting quickly to amend the flaws which were obvious in the previous procedure, but the new one is just as bad a scrapheap and contravenes natural justice just as badly. These are some of the most important decisions that will ever have to be taken, and there must be proper machinery for taking them. We have had hundreds of lengthy amendments from the Government and amendments to

amendments, and there have been mistakes in them. The law of the land is meant to be accurate.
It is wrong to change the previous procedure by shuffling in this Benjamin Bunny concept of getting the Lord Chancellor to appoint a chap in the middle. We are dealing with an important national matter, and to set up an important body in such a hurry, so trivially, with very little thought of the concepts and principals involved, is a great mistake.
I do not think that the body will favour one side or the other, but it will do immeasurable damage to both.
I beg the Under-Secretary of State, before the Bill reaches the statute book, to improve this slipshod committee which should be a tribunal at law because its sole function is to interpret the law. There should be an appeal to the law. The purpose of the law is to be impartial, but this procedure is secret, inadequate and contrary to all the principles of justice and natural justice. It is a compromise between the dreadful scheme we had before and the criticisms that were made of it, and it is still not right. As I recalled at the beginning, the judgment of Solomon was to get it right, and not to divide and mutilate the baby.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: The Committee spent more than 13 hours considering this important Clause 23. It is a matter of great regret that we are now considering such an important clause virtually completely redrafted by the Government since the Standing Committee ceased its deliberations, and considering it under the guillotine procedure, which allows us only three hours to discuss a virtually new clause which the Government recognised to be of crucial importance.
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) I think that the composition of the committee of the so-called three wise men is open to grievous objection. First, two out of the three members of the committee are appointed solely within the discretion of the Secretary of State subject, it is true, to the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Why we have to bring the Minister of Agriculture into


the appointment of this advisory committee I do not know, but two out of the three members of the committee are appointed exclusively by the Secretary of State, subject only to the consent of the Minister.
This extends the power of political patronage. Amendment No. 112 provides that the Minister shall also have power in cases where he thinks it appropriate to make payments to the members of the committee. Again, I deplore the extension of the power of political patronage to what should be—as the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself shows—a committee appointed independently and not by the political executive.
I criticise the wording of Amendment No. 109. If the phrase "special reasons" is to appear in an Act of Parliament, it should be judicially defined in the interpretation clause. No guidance is given to the three wise men on how they are to interpret "special reasons". Those words appear twice in the amended Clause 23 and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire said, the words "special reasons" have been defined principally by the courts in connection with the Road Traffic Act 1930 and the Road Traffic Act 1962. But the definition given in those two Acts of Parliament and the interpretation of those words as decided by the courts since bear absolutely no relationship whatever to the meaning which the Government have in mind under the provisions of the amended Clause 23.
How can the three members of this advisory committee interpret what is meant by "special reasons"? Is it that the directors of the company concerned feel very strongly that the information should not be disclosed? Would that amount to special reasons? Is it because the unions concerned, to which the information might be disclosed, are particularly anxious that there should be disclosure? How on earth and by what criterion are these words "special reasons" to be defined? If the words mean anything, why do not the Government come clean with the House, come clean with the trade unions and come clean with the companies which are to be asked to disclose this information, and

tell them precisely what is meant by "special reasons"?

Mr. Kaufman: It may save the hon. Memeber a good deal of heartburn and the House a good deal of time if I refer him to Amendment No. 105, carried by the House yesterday, which specified what the special reasons were.

Mr. Gower: The Minister may think that that is an adequate definition. We on the Conservative side most certainly do not.
The fourth reason why I believe that the amended Clause 23 is wholly unsatisfactory is that there is a provision that the order which the Minister may make for disclosure shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a negative resolution of either House of Parliament. How can Parliament make a decision of this kind without the disclosure to Parliament of just precisely that information which is the subject matter of the order? It seems to me to be quite meaningless to suggest that Parliament itself could pass any kind of sensible judgment on the opinion of the advisory committee or the decision of the Minister upon that recommendation without—

Mr. Stainton: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to develop this point also in relation to the suggested definition of "special reasons"? As I understand the situation, no body of precedent would be forthcoming, inasmuch as no detailed judgment would be available, so that no corpus of opinion on this could be built up.

Mr. Gow: I agree with my hon. Friend and hope that this is something he will be able to develop if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I do not see how the procedure for annulment by either House of Parliament can possibly be effected without disclosing precisely that information which ought not to be disclosed, because, of course, as envisaged, the advisory committee will sit in private.
My prediction is that the amended Clause 23 will prove to be unworkable. I think that this procedure will be challenged in the High Court because it offends against the rules of natural justice. I predict that before long the Government will be coming back to the


House of Commons seeking to amend Clause 23 in precisely the way that is suggested by the amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. But at least the Government have the possibility of escape from the trap they have laid for themselves. They can still, in another place, introduce amendments along the lines suggested in the amendment.
I beg the Minister to look again at his amended Clause 23. It will not work, the courts will prove that it will not work, and he will have to come back to this House within a few months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent in order to make precisely the changes that were urged by my hon. Friend when he moved the amendment.

Sir Raymond Gower: I agree with practically everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said in his very decisive contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) said in his opening remarks that we need to preserve the distinction between the executive and the judiciary which has been enshrined in our laws. I wish I could be quite as sure about that. I am afraid that there have been, unfortunately, several infringements. There has been a gradual process for many years which has lessened this salutary distinction, which I should have liked to see preserved to a greater degree.
What my hon. Friend would like to see preserved is enshrined in a much more real way in the constitution of some other countries, including Canada and the United States. I agree with him that it is highly desirable that we should seek to preserve considerable distinction between the executive and the judiciary. That in some degree answers one or two interventions by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) a short time ago.
It is not that we want necessarily to have lawyers in a body of this kind. It is necessary, I believe, that we should have the sort of body which is divorced from the person making the political judgment when implementing the political part of this machinery. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see that, I am afraid that there is a great divide between us. That is the vital distinction.
I admit that in the course of many years in this House I have detected at times, not among all Labour Ministers and Members but among sonic of them, a deep-founded suspicion of lawyers and of the courts. I quite understand it. It is probably based on the ancient dictum that the law is open to all, the same as the Savoy Hotel.

Mr. Hal Miller: If my hon. Friend had been with us in the Committee proceedings, I wonder what he would have made of the remarks by the then Secretary of State, who claimed that his actions under the Bill would not be subject to interpretation by the courts. This is, my hon. Friend might think, an example of what he meant.

Sir Raymond Gower: I am not thinking of a particular case, but there has been a general suspicion, which I attribute to a quite understandable feeling, that in the past, certainly before legal aid, there were people with a perfectly valid case who for financial reasons could not go to court. There were other reasons, too, such as a feeling that perhaps the courts were not always aware of the practicalities of everyday life as they affect the more humble citizen. I can understand all that. Nevertheless it is vitally important that any country, whatever its standard of civilisation or its mechanical progress, should preserve a judiciary and a system of law which is divorced from the executive government.
Hon. Members will recall how dangerous any blurring of this issue has always been, especially in countries like pre-war Germany and pre-war Italy. Once this principle is allowed to become unimportant, countries proceed at their peril.
This may all appear to be somewhat remote, but I believe that it has a real relationship with what is proposed here. If we are to preserve it in the context of the Bill, I appeal to the Minister to look at this again. He has, as has been indicated, shown that he has a great sympathy for the argument as used in Committee. He wanted to arrive at a practical solution, but I submit that the one he has arrived at is not a very good one.
6.0 p.m.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) pointed out, it is a


temptation to adopt the expedient of getting someone from each side and thinking that this will achieve some sort of neutrality. But it is not the answer. We want a body which is accustomed to assessing the weight of evidence, a body which will not be swayed by influences of a transient kind but one which looks at the evidence of a case. As my hon. and learned Friend said, it will be dealing with matters of tremendous importance to the life of the country and to the life and welfare of our industry, some of it possibly with international implications. There are rival companies overseas, some with offshoots in this country, which would be only too anxious to get some of the evidence which our own domestic companies would not want to be known generally at vital stages in their formation.
I appeal to the Government to look at this again. If they set up a judicial tribunal, a body with neither an employer nor a member of a trade union on it, far from divorcing fair treatment from both sides they will increase the probability of fair and impartial treatment for both sides.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that if we set up a judicial tribunal we shall need an interpretation clause to define "special reasons". The Minister said that the phrase was defined adequately by the new amendment which was agreed to yesterday. Even in that case, however, we should need a reference in the interpretation clause to the amendment which was made yesterday. Even if the Government adopt the looser new clause, they will need some reference to "special reasons" at the end of the Bill. I hope that the Under-Secretary appreciates this. I am sure his advisers will confirm that he will need some interpretation of "special reasons", even if it is merely a reference to the clause which was changed yesterday.
I appeal to the hon. Gentleman, therefore, to prefer the impartial judicial tribunal—one which is accustomed to weighing dispassionately the evidence of cases of this kind—to one which will be subject to the buffetings and pressures which, in the long run, cannot ensure a fair and impartial judgment.

Mr. Giles Shaw: This debate has rightly been dominated by the legal

arguments by the lawyers seeking to point out to the Government the difficulties of interpretation and the awkwardnesses of precedent in the procedure which is to be set up. I wish to draw attention to other aspects of the clause and of these amendments, especially the Government amendment, which cause me equal concern.
When we debated this matter in Committee, some of us recognised that in this extremely sensitive area where employers and relevant trade unions were to be involved it would not be easy to find a correct solution. The Government will be aware of the view they took of the Conservative Industrial Relations Act and of the view they took of the setting up of that special court. Therefore, I think that there is virtue in recalling that precedent and in recognising that in setting up a procedure for something as important as heading off a potential and serious industrial dispute, great care should be taken to ensure that the procedure is seen to have three characteristics: that it should be a clear and well-understood procedure; that it should be a fair procedure, the findings of which can be acceptable; and that it should be a procedure in which the litigants on both sides can have confidence. I find the present Government proposals lacking in conviction in terms of those three criteria.
As for the clarity of the procedure, I found it difficult in Committee—and I have not yet been reassured—to believe that the representatives of relevant trade unions can argue the case effectively for what they want to see done. They are not in possession of the facts which are material to the case, nor are they in possession of the interpretation of what is prejudicial or seriously prejudicial, which the company or companies will themselves have. Furthermore, they are now no longer in a position in which what they might argue is known to be binding within the appeal procedure itself, because we now discover that the advisory committee as set up will literally advise and that the Minister may or may not accept what the committee has to say. It means that it will be very difficult, for example, for the representatives of relevant trade unions to build up confidence in the machinery by knowning that it works by a clear pattern of decision, because the Minister may vary the way in which he


wishes to take the decision at which the committee arrives.
Equally, the company itself will find the procedure very difficult. It is being offered "special reasons", and the reasons are clear as to (a) and (b): that it believes that the disclosure would be seriously prejudicial to the company and its interests, or that the information which it is required to disclose would be passed in confidence.
At least the company will be clear about its belief in the confidential nature of the information passed to it. If it was in confidence and it could show it to have been in confidence, it could be clear about about its standing before the committee. Equally, it could take a strong view about the serious nature of the disclosure of information if that was forced upon it. The company will therefore be able to prepare a good case on those counts. But there could be a substantial number of employees affected, and here there might be difficulty.
The company, in relation to its relevant trade union, is dealing purely with the employees of that company. But the relevant trade union in dealing with its total membership. In relation to the appeal procedure, it will be largely representing the employees of the company which has failed to take a disclosure order from the Minister. But the relevant trade union will take a fair measure of interest in the protection, on the wider front, of its total union membership. It is bound to do so. Therefore, it is very difficult for the company to be assured that what it is talking about is a local matter which is contained within the company itself and upon which it can argue with a degree of conviction.
I find the clarity of this process faulty because both participants are on shifting ground. They cannot be sure about the way in which the procedure will work.
That leads me to ask whether the procedure will be fair in its findings. This is the second criterion. There was a view that if the appeal committee arrived at a unanimous decision and was seen to be composed of impartial members—I do not share with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) the anxiety about having members from trade union and management sides—and if the parties

could be certain that the findings would be accepted—and we have here a procedure which will build up precedent value and its own case law—they would know precisely where they stood on claims being made and, therefore, they could be reasonably sure that it would be fair. If it was fair, it would be a procedure which they could follow willingly.
On the Government's proposals, however, the Minister does not have to accept its findings, so that the fairness which is so important in building up confidence in the procedure will be put at risk. The Minister may determine for his own reasons whether or not to accept the findings of the committee. And so I come to the third factor, which is whether the procedure is one in which both parties can have confidence.
Here again I find the present proposals lacking, for the reasons I have adduced. It does not seem to me that the procedure lends itself to being consistent. It does not lend itself to arriving at fair judgments, because they might be overturned. I cannot believe that it is a procedure which will attract significant confidence. I remind the Under-Secretary of State that the whole procedure of the Industrial Relations Act foundered because neither the relevant trade unions nor the employers were confident about the effective working of that measure as regards their industrial problems. For example, unions failed to register because they were not confident of the benefits of so doing. We had a piece of legislation which did not find great acceptance in the sector of industry in which it was meant to work. I suggest that the precedents are not good. That means that we must find a procedure which we all understand and which everyone believes will arrive at fair decisions. There must be general acceptance that its decisions will provide the confidence that is clearly required.
I understand the enormous advantage to be gained by the relevant trade unions sharing to the maximum extent the information which will be obtainable within the Bill, but it is not the information itself which is important but the use which is made of it. In that sense it is vital that the appeals procedure does not exacerbate bad relations and cause damage between the parties. After all, a dispute can have dramatic repercussions. It is vital that the procedure is


one in which all parties can have confidence. Frankly, I do not think that will be the case.

Mr. Hal Miller: I support the sub-amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. I shall endeavour clearly to set out the reasons for that support. Before doing so, I must say that I recognise the impatience that at times must be felt by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). Clearly they are both taking a plain man's practical and experienced view. They are considering these matters as part of the collective bargaining process and they are looking for some give and take. They are seeking to establish confidence in the committee in the eyes of the shop floor and in the eyes of management. No doubt it is their wish that a recommendation will eventually be made to the Minister and that the procedure will be set up on that basis.
I understand and sympathise with that point of view and with the impatience that might arise from a lot of seemingly legal wrangling by my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend because what we are discussing is a question of fact. A Minister is supposed to consider reasons for the withholding of information. If we refer to Clause 22 we see that the reasons include national policy or special reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has been into "special reasons" at some length. Among those reasons is that information has been communicated to the company or companies concerned in confidence or that information has been obtained in consequence of a confidence and that disclosure would cause substantial injuries. Those are questions of fact. They are not questions to be negotiated. It is not a question of reaching a view after hearing two cases and saying on balance that one finds for one or the other. The committee is being asked to determine straightforward questions of fact.
Reasons involving national policy have also been defined—namely,
that to furnish it would be undesirable in the national interest",

or that it could not be furnished
without contravening a prohibition imposed by or under an enactment.
There is some area of indecision as regards "national interest" and it is clear that the committee would not be peculiarly qualified to advise the Minister on the national interest. However, whether or not a company could furnish information without contravening a prohibition is once more a clear question of fact. We are dealing with fact and not with negotiation. I appreciate the reasons which lead Labour Members to approach the matter in terms of negotiation, but I submit that that is the wrong approach. The question falls to be determined as a question of fact—namely, in front of a court.
6.15 p.m.
I turn to advisory committees. At the outset I pay tribute to the Government for taking on board the discussions which showed that the original proposal for the Central Arbitration Committee of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to be responsble in this sphere was wrong. The hon. Member for Walton was generous enough to admit that it probably was not the right body and that it had better things to do. The idea that we should have a committee set up by the Minister, with the Minister free to decide whether to accept its advice on questions of fact, is plainly ludicrous. It all arises out of confusion as to the purpose of the Bill, to which I and other hon. Members have had occasion to refer to in previous remarks.
The information that the unions need for their collective bargaining is stated in the Employment Protection Bill. There are disclosure provisions set out in that Bill and procedures are established. I had occasion to refer yesterday in an earlier amendment to the wide-ranging nature of the disclosure provisions contained in the draft company legislation put forward by this side of the House when we were in office. That fell because of the February 1974 election. It is the confusion of purpose between industrial relations, industrial democracy, which is a sort of refinement of industrial relations, and employment protection that has led to the setting up of this ludicrously long-winded procedure. I think that the hon. Member for Walton and myself would be in agreement about that.
It seems incredible that we should have to set up a procedure of this complexity and of this length, with so many ramifications, to achieve an exchange of information between a company and its own employees. I well understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings of impatience, and on that basis I share them. However, we are talking about reasons involving national policy—for example, whether a company is breaking a confidence or an enactment. Those are questions of fact and they are not matters to negotiate.
These difficulties arise because the whole procedure is misconceived. It is misconceived because the Bill's provisions are misconceived. The provisions are misconceived because the objects are ill conceived and muddled. We should revert once more to the main purpose of the Bill—namely, an attemp to try to do something about regenerating British industry and bringing about greater investment through the NEB and planning agreements.
The Conservative Party produced its own Industry Act. That Act covered a great deal of the same ground as regards the regeneration of British industry. It is foolish to try to restrict an Act that is designed for that purpose, an Act that is doing something about employment practices, industrial relations and employment protection. It is that approach that has led us into this tremendous gobbledegook. If we are to have a procedure of this sort to meet the Government's wishes, we must ensure that concern is paid to questions of fact and that we have a properly constituted appeal body.
That body has to be independent, and must be seen to be independent by both sides. It is necessary that the union representatives should be satisfied that the case has been impartially and fairly heard—not bargained away as part of an odd job lot along with other considerations about holidays or pensions. If I were a representative of a trade union, that is how I would wish the matter to be considered. It is a clear question of fact for an appeal tribunal to consider on the lines set out in the amendment. For that reason, I have pleasure in supporting the proposal.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw)—he has explained his

reasons for not being present to hear my reply—said that the debate would be dominated by legal arguments. It is true that from the Opposition side of the House we have heard a litigation or procession of lawyers one by one getting up and stating their opinions. I do not agree that it is right that this matter should be dominated by legal arguments put by lawyers, valid and interesting though many of those arguments have been. This is a practical issue rather than a legal one. One of the problems of the Conservative Opposition is that they have a tendency to trammel practical issues into legal toils.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) attempted to demonstrate that what was required was to separate governmental and political decisions from judicial decisions. It is a little late in the day to want to separate these matters. I pointed out in an intervention that when it comes to decisions by the Secretary of State for the Environment on compulsory purchase orders or planning agreements, he acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. But the Secretary of State is a politician, and in exercising that function he operates as a politician and must do so. Having seen the report of the inspector on, say, a compulsory purchase order, the Secretary of State in exercising his final decision will take into account national policy. Furthermore, in dealing with a compulsory purchase order in which the arguments are finely balanced he will consider whether national policy should be biased in favour of redevelopment or of renovation. That must be the case, and it is impossible to separate out these functions.
The Industrial Relations Act, to which the hon. Member for Pudsey referred, got the situation hopelessly muddled since that legislation sought to deal with industrial disputes and the ordering of ballots and gave the Minister responsibility for making legal judgments and the National Industrial Relations Court the task of making political judgments. When the NIRC ordered a ballot among the railwaymen, it did so not on legal grounds but on grounds of having been compelled by the Industrial Relations Act to make political and industrial judgments about the mood of the railwaymen. What is more, the NIRC, having been given a political and industrial function by the


then Government, got its assessment wrong.
The Conservative Government of the day got hopelessly trammelled in the legal toils to which I have referred partly by being bound by difficulties of their own making and partly by being unable to control their own sorcerer's apprentice. When the five dockers went to gaol, the Conservative Government had to search for an expedient and came up with the services of the Official Solicitor as the only way of getting out of the dilemma into which they had trapped themselves. In a small way we also could have got trapped if we had persisted in the machinery which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) rightly said was mistaken and which we have abandoned.

Mr. Fairbairn: The Minister said that the Secretary of State's decision—this is what frightens me—will be political and not judicial. Therefore, if the Transport and General Workers' Union or the National Union of Railwaymen put pressure on the Minister by saying "We want this information disclosed", he will make a political decision regardless of the terms of this legislation.

Mr. Kaufman: No, that is not so. The Secretary of State is bound by the Act. One of the most satisfactory things about British public life is that Ministers in both parties which have held office in the last 30 years have overwhelmingly behaved properly in the exercise of their functions and in the use of their discretion. The number of occasions when Ministers have dragged political judgments into the situation has been small, if they have existed at all. It ill becomes the House of Commons to discredit the use of the discretion of politicians. I emphasise that one of the most satisfactory things about British public life is the honourable way in which politicians have discharged their ministerial functions.

Mr. Hal Miller: The Minister spoke about the legal toils and trammels of the Industrial Relations Act. I have some sympathy with his remarks, but will he explain why the Government are now attempting to legislate in that same area of activity despite the unhappy experience to which he referred?

Mr. Kaufman: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Government should never legislate in industrial matters. All Governments have done so. I agree that a Government should be cautious when setting up a new court for ad hoc purposes. One of the most regrettable aspects of the Industrial Relations Act was that the then Government set up a new court for ad hoc purposes. The Conservatives in their amendments ask the Government to set up yet another new court for ad hoc purposes. I cannot accept the Liberal Party amendment, but at least the Liberals recognise that trap and do not wish us to fall into it.

Mr. Stanley: Will the hon. Gentleman further consider his remark that the Minister will be bound by legislation? Surely the legislation is drafted so as to achieve a position in which the Minister is not bound to implement the decision of the advisory committee. Although that committee may take the view that special reasons apply, the Minister is not bound by that view. He is saying to the whole of British industry and to every trade union which may wish to approach the advisory committee that no one who makes an appeal to the advisory committee can be certain that the special reasons laid down in the Bill will be acceptable and implemented.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: I do not accept that at all. It is certainly true that no one who makes an appeal can be certain of the outcome. It would be a very strange procedure if one appealed and knew the result before the appeal was heard. It would be wrong for it to be understood that the procedure the House of Commons is proposing, which I trust will be incorporated in the Bill, will be operated other than totally and honourably and in accordance with the Bill. The Minister does not have carte blanche to set aside the decisions of the advisory committee.
The advisory committee is asked to make decisions on certain criteria, including the special reasons. The Minister will set aside the advice of the advisory committee if he believes that the special reasons are nevertheless being conformed to. He will not do it simply because it will please the Transport and General


Workers' Union or the "Selsdon Society" or whatever powerful body he seeks to please at the time.

Mr. Tom King: We know the criteria by which the advisory council will be bound. The Minister has said that the Secretary of State will be bound by the provisions of the Bill. On what criteria will the Secretary of State's decision be taken?

Mr. Kaufman: The Secretary of State will examine the decision in the light of the criteria laid down in the Bill. He will be answerable to the House of Commons. Conservative Members seem to imagine that any debate on a negative order would operate in a vacuum. Without the precise information being passed on, it is perfectly obvious that a company, perfectly justifiably, would fully brief the Conservative Party if it had tabled a Prayer to deal with a situation such as this.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has Just said the the Secretary of State will be bound by the House of Commons and will be answerable to it. If the advisory committee says that the information should be disclosed and the Secretary of State says that it should not, is there any recourse to the House of Commons?

Mr. Kaufman: No, and that is absolutely as it should be. I was about to deal with that point, and this is a suitable place to do so.
Under the machinery as we put it forward there was no recourse to the House of Commons at all. Conservative Members have made a great deal about the serious nature of this information. I do not grumble with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. Heller) has quite rightly done the same. If the advice is that the information should not be disclosed and the Secretary of State accepts that advice, he is keeping the confidence. It is absurd to expect the Secretary of State to be answerable for keeping the confidence. We propose that if the Secretary of State rejects the advice and decides that the confidence shall be broken, he shall be answerable for breaking that confidence. They are not parallel situations, and I am sure that Conservative Members realise that the balance is as it should be.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has not got it right. If the Secretary of State agrees with the advisory committee, everything is all right—there is no further recourse. However, if the advisory committee says that the information should be disclosed and the Secretary of State disagrees, that matter would not be laid before Parliament.

Mr. Kaufman: I accept that. However, I am saying that by doing this we are protecting the company. If my hon. Friends grumbled about it, that might be understandable, but the fact is that we are biasing the system to that extent in favour of the company. If the advisory committee has advised that the information should be disclosed and if the Secretary of State uses his discretion to prevent the information from being disclosed, as he is keeping the confidence we are weighting it that way and he should not be answerable to the House of Commons. He should be answerable to the House of Commons if, contrary to the advice of the committee, he decides to break the confidence.

Mr. Fairbairn: This is a serious matter. The Under-Secretary has conceded that the advisory committee has to interpret the statute and that that binds the committee and the Secretary of State. Assuming that the committee comes to one conclusion and the Secretary of State comes to another—in other words, that the interpretation of the Secretary of State supersedes the interpretation of the committee—as that is binding, why have the advisory committee in the first place? If, without hearing any parties, the Secretary of State is able to overturn the legal decision of the committee, why have the committee at all? If the Secretary of State is such a genius, why cannot he do it on his own in the first place?

Mr. Kaufman: I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman concedes that my right hon. Friend is a genius. That is widely known throughout the country.
The situation is that before making his decision the Secretary of State can ask the advisory committee for advice. It is an advisory committee to the Secretary of State to which he, the company and the unions can apply. That is the great merit of this body as distinct from the


Gilbertian paraphernalia which the Conservative Party seeks to set up in rivalry to it.

Mr. Stainton: I do not want to resort to derogatory remarks. If the Under-Secretary wants to proceed in that manner, we can go back to the Green Papers and the White Papers that have been issued. We could waste a great deal of time and embarrass the Under-Secretary. I want to pursue the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend, namely, the duty being placed on the advisory committee or the Secretary of State of interpreting the statute. My interpretation is slightly different. The Secretary of State and/or the advisory committee would be interpreting not the statute but the circumstances, in particular within the framework of the statute. If we have a discussion on this basis, we shall make progress.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman, as so often in Committee, has got it absolutely right. I would not quibble with his interpretation. On the other hand, I hope that he does not think that a reference to W. S. Gilbert is derogatory. A great many people, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have a high admiration for W. S. Gilbert. I certainly would not quarrel with him on that ground.
What troubles me about the Opposition's amendment is that they never seem to learn. They have this inexplicable passion for setting up courts of law. They set up a court of law under the Industrial Relations Act which was one of the greatest disasters in legal terms which any Government have ever dabbled in. They are now attempting to set up a new court on which they have tabled a massively detailed amendment.
The Opposition hold the view that everything must be left in the hands of lawyers. We believe that there should be a more practical approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walton and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) pointed out, it is a practical issue. This is an Industry Bill. Let us deal with it in a sensible way. I call upon the House to reject the Opposition's amendment and to carry the Government's amendment.

Mr. Tim Renton: I apologise to the House for not having been present during the whole of this debate.
I would like to take up one or two points made by the Minister in his reply. Understandably he referred to the fact that the Secretary of State, in considering the appeals procedure, would act totally honourably. I am sure that none of us would deny that. In a case of confidential information relating to a company's forward plans or to plans that might affect a large number of employees it is sometimes difficult to say that a Minister is acting honourably in the decision that he makes.
I refer to a case in history when a decision was taken by Harold Macmillan about the building of new steel works. If the steel industry were still in private hands this would be just the sort of forward planning, affecting a large number of employees, that might be referred to the Secretary of State. The decision taken by Harold Macmillan was that a big new steel complex should be split up and that part of it should got to Ravenscraig outside Glasgow and the other part to Port Talbot. Many of us who were not in the House at the time but who were, as I was, involved in the steel industry thought that that was a wrong decision. It was a decision that almost doomed both plants to economic failure. The size of the two separate units was not sufficient to enable them to compete with the big new steel complexes built at deep-water ports in, for example, Germany and Japan.
I have no doubt that Harold Macmillan acted honourably and felt that he was considering the arguments about the labour forces at Glasgow and in South Wales. He felt that he took a correct and honourable decision, but it was a highly political decision. It is just this sort of situation involving the future of a major company that makes it extremely difficult for the Secretary of State, however honourable his motives, to decide what is the right course.
Hence the whole question of the advisory committee, or, as we we would say, an appeals tribunal with quasi-judicial functions. The Under-Secretary made the point—I hope I understood him correctly—that if the appeals advisory committee were to decide against the company and said that the information


should be revealed to the trade union involved it would be up to the company to make it clear to Opposition Members what it was worried about. Opposition members would then be able to pray against the order revealing the information to the trade union. That is a totally fallacious argument. If a company briefs Opposition Members the confidentiality of the information which it seeks to preserve goes by the board.
This was the point made at the beginning of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley). The fact that a company wishes to keep information confidential makes it impossible for the negative order procedure to be utilised at all effectively. The more a company tries to brief Members of Parliament about what is involved the more it will be breaking the confidentiality which it is essential to maintain.
The most important point is that in the original Bill, debated at such great length in Committee, the conciliation and arbitration tribunal then put forward by the Government was a committee of decision. It had a deciding power on the release of information. It is that aspect which has disappeared as a result of this new Government amendment and which I find most worrying. We have a state of affairs where the Secretary of State appoints his own jury, leaves them to look at the matter and then decides whether to abide by their decision.
I find that an intolerable state of affairs. In many ways the provision in the original Bill was preferable. Then the committee had a definite power. Now it is a neutered animal. The Government will be able to see what the advisory committee has come forward with and decide whether to follow its recommendation.
For that reason I shall certainly join wholeheartedly with my hon. Friends in voting against the Government amendment and supporting our amendment to it.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: These amendments and this whole procedure are final evidence of how complicated and totally inadequate is this whole system. I was not in the least surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) came somewhat fresh to our

deliberations to say what an absolute nonsense the Government amendments were and also to criticise our amendment. We accept a measure of criticism of our amendment because, like the Irishman who was asked the way, we should not have started from this point.
In such a chaotic situation we are trying to find something that makes sense. I feel that the hon. and learned Member regarded the case as fairly hopeless and put down a tentative marker which at least indicated his dislike of the two proposals. We agree that there is difficulty in finding anything in this appallingly complicated structure which makes any sense.

Mr. Hooson: What the Liberal Party has suggested is simply that we should change the advisory committee into an appeals committee, make it more high-powered and let it decide. That stems to be the best practical opportunity we have for doing something acceptable.

Mr. King: I listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member and I understand his point. He will realise that, whatever we do here, there are other inadequacies and problems relating to how any case can be discussed in the light of the confidentiality requirements.
The Minister has slipped blandly through these proceedings. It might not have been so easy for him in Committee. It was an interesting approach of his—I put it no higher—to criticise Conservative members for introducing legalistic arguments into our discussion. Who is creating the law? Who is introducing law into this area? The Bill, if it becomes an Act, will become the law of the land. The Minister is creating a legal instrument. It seems to be a curious approach for him to say "You chaps are being rather legalistic in your arguments." We have had interventions from certain distinguished lawyers. It is right that they should bring their experience to us to warn of the problems. Some of the issues in this measure will end up before the courts.
I would not have thought in the present state of the country that politicians were in a strong enough position to enable them to sneer at other professions. Living in this glasshouse, I would not want to throw stones at practitioners elsewhere. I find it difficult to know whether we are


discussing a joke, a non-event or something particularly disastrous.
Congress has recently abolished a committee, I think the Mines and Mineral Workings Safety Appeals Committee. A gentleman was appointed to be in charge of that committee three years ago and has spent the past one and one half years petitioning Congress to dismiss him. He has been sitting in his office, with a secretary and expensive equipment but with not a single thing to do. It has taken him a year and a half to get his committee abolished and to be dismissed from his post. I wonder whether we are possibly seeing in this advisory committee a British version of that transatlantic phenomenon, because seriously I wonder how his committee can possibly work.
The advisory committee will start, and the first problem is how on earth it is to conduct its business—not because of the amendment which the Government have tabled, which is the correct amendment, but because it clearly outlines the problem. It says that it is the Minister's duty to give such indication of the nature without disclosing the substance of any information which the Minister proposes
shall not be furnished … for special reasons".
How on earth is a trade union to argue its case if it does not know what it is arguing about? If the information on which it wishes to present its case has to be kept confidential, how is the case to be pursued? That is what the advisory committee has to do. We have this advisory committee which is splendidly impartial, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has said, which starts by having one partial person appointed on each side. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has made the point that it will be natural and right that the trade union member should be biased in favour of greater disclosure, and the impression of the hon. Member is that the implication is that the management representative will be naturally biased against disclosure, though I would not accept that. So the advisory committee starts with two people preconsidered to be biased, and we end up with one impartial lawyer.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is the basic principle on which English law is conducted?

Mr. King: I am sure the hon. Gentleman has been engaged on important parliamentary business, and I would not in any way condemn his absence from the Chamber, but this matter has already been exhaustively discussed and, if he will forgive me, I shall not respond to that comment.
We have this basic fallacy at the heart of this so-called impartial committee with one biased member balanced by another biased member and the independent lawyer in the middle as chairman. I put this point to the Under-Secretary. If the Lord Chancellor is to appoint that person as the balancing member, and the Minister is to take the decision in the issue, would it not be more desirable, and more clearly seen to be independent and impartial, if the Lord Chancellor were to appoint all three members? Panels could be recruited but the Lord Chancellor could have the independent appointment of all three members. That might be preferable.
Then we have the rather peculiar situation that if the Secretary of State overrides the advice of the committee he has to lay an order before Parliament. This was the great answer of the Under-Secretary to my objection about the possibility, the faint and remote possibility, that there might be a Secretary of State who might himself be politically biased. It is a suggestion that I would not dream of pressing but it might occasionally arise. There is the faint eventuality that we might have a politically-biased Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary said "There is the great protection of Parliament, because he can lay an order before Parliament for negative resolution".
Would the Under-Secretary like to give me an estimate of what percentage of Prayers to annul resolutions have actually been debatable in this House and have had time for debate? I have tried to check but the figures do not seem to be available. I put it at between 10 and 20 per cent. In other words, it is four to one on, at the very best, that no resolution under the negative procedure will get any chance of debate in this


House. So much for parliamentary protection.
An order becomes effective when laid, and ordinarily after 40 days it cannot be annulled if there is no opportunity for debate. If by chance we got a debate, what a splendid debate it would be. We are to have an order put forward by the Secretary of State saying "I consider that information—I cannot tell you what it is—ought to be disclosed to trade unions, and I would like to make this order." Those who might be opposed to it would have to say that the information, of which they were not aware, should not be disclosed to a trade union. What an illuminating, splendid debate it would be, with unknown information being debated between the two sides, one side saying "No" and the other side saying "Yes" and no one having the slightest idea what he was supposed to be talking about!
If that is not Gilbertian in the extreme —and the Under-Secretary has the nerve to describe our proposals as Gilbertian—I really do not know what is. The final outcome of this appeal procedure shows just how ludicrous the whole procedure is that at a time of economic crisis for this country Parliament should be debating a proposal so ludicrous and so irrelevant as the introduction of this complicated panjandrum of law into a matter which is certainly of vital importance to employees and companies but which should be able to be dealt with within the factory or the company, a matter on which Parliament should not he trying to legislate in this appalling and complicated way.

Sir Raymond Gower: I believe that the position is even more Gilbertian, if that is possible, than my hon. Friend has described, because in answer to a point I made earlier the Minister said that there was a definition of "special reasons". The new clause passed yesterday says that for the purposes of this

Act special reasons apply "if the Minister considers"—and then we find that a company can require the matter to be referred to the advisory committee if the company claims that for special reasons the information should not he furnished. If we go back to the definition of "special reasons" we find that it is "if the Minister considers". Therefore, is not the position even more Gilbertian than my hon. Friend states, and have not the Government got themselves in their drafting into a most appalling hiatus?

Mr. King: It was a line in Gilbert referring to parliamentary draftsmen, which said:
We only suffer
To ride on a buffer
In Parliamentary trains.
In due deference, it would be extremely unkind to apply that to the parliamentary draftsman in this case. Blame for the present situations rests on the Government and on Ministers who have tried to introduce a concept which turns into a legal nightmare. I have every sympathy with the draftsmen. I fancy that they are the only people who still understand all this, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), who may well be the only other one who understands it.
The complexities are quite extraordinary, and my hon. Friend's intervention on the complication of "special reasons" serves only to emphasise that point. This whole debate and this final climax of the question of the advisory committee or appeal tribunal, call it what one will, has illustrated the unsatisfactory nature of this whole situation. It is for that reason that we shall certainly press our amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 297.

Division No. 270.]
AYES
[7.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bradford, Rev Robert


Alison, Michael
Benyon, W.
Braine, Sir Bernard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bitten, John
Brittan, Leon


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, John
Brotherton, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Blaker, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Awdry, Daniel
Body, Richard
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Kenneth
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Buck, Antony


Banks, Robert
Bottomley, Peter
Budgen, Nick


Bell, Ronald
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Bulmer, Esmond




Burden, F. A.
Hurd, Douglas
Pink, R. Bonner


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Churchill, W. S.
James, David
Pym. Rt Hon Francis


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df 'd)
Raison, Timothy


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cockcroft, John
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Drayson, Burnaby
Knox, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dunlop, John
Lane. David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Durant, Tony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawson, Nigel
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, Sir William
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott-Hopkins, James


Emery, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Farr, John
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin


Fell, Anthony
Luce, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sims, Roger


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCrindle, Robert
Sinclair, Sir George


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCusker, H.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fry, Peter
Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stainton, Keith


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marten, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mates, Michael
Stanley, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stokes, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Goodlad, Alastair
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gorst, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mills, Peter
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D.


Griffiths, Eldon
Molyneaux, James
Trotter, Neville


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grylls, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint
Viggers, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wakeham, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hannam,John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walters, Dennis


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth


Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Havers, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John


Hawkins, Paul
Neubert, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Normanton, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas


Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John
Younger, Hon George


Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow West)



Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Fred Silvester and


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Peyton, Rt Hon John





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ashton, Joe
Bates, Alf


Allaun, Frank
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bean, R. E.


Anderson, Donald
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Beith, A. J.


Archer, Peter
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)


Ashley, Jack
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bidwell, Sydney







Bishop, E. S.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grocott, Bruce
Moyle, Roland


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Newens, Stanley


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hardy, Peter
Noble, Mike


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ogden, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Halloran, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hatton, Frank
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ovenden, John


Buchan, Norman
Henderson, Douglas
Owen, Dr David


Buchanan, Richard
Hooley, Frank
Padley, Waiter


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hooson, Emlyn
Palmer, Arthur


Campbell, Ian
Horam, John
Pardoe, John


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Park, George


Cant, R. B.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parker, John


Carter, Ray
Huckfield, Les
Parry, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Penhaligon, David


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Coleman, Donald
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Radice, Giles


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Reid, George


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Janner, Greville
Richardson, Miss Jo


Corbett, Robin
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crawford, Douglas
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cryer, Bob
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rose, Paul B.


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kaufman, Gerald
Ryman, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kelley, Richard
Sedgemore, Brian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Selby, Harry


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Deakins, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lambie, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Delargy, Hugh
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lee, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sillars, James


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunn, James A.
Litterick, Tom
Snape, Peter


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie
Spriggs, Leslie


Eadie, Alex
Luard, Evan
Stallard, A. W.


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stoddart, David


Ennals, David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stott, Roger


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, John (Newton)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNamara, Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tierney, Sydney


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomilnson, John


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Gilbert, Dr John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Torney, Tom


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Golding, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Urwin, T. W.


Gould, Bryan
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Gourlay, Harry
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Graham, Ted
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)







Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
White, James (Pollok)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ward, Michael
Whitlock, William
Woodall, Alec


Watkins, David
Wigley, Dafydd
Woof, Robert


Watkinson, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Watt, Hamish
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Weetch, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)



Weitzman, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. Josepn Harper and


Welsh, Andrew
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Mr. John [...]


White, Frank R. (Bury)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment (6) proposed to the proposed amendment, in subsection (1), leave out 'advisory' and insert 'appeal'.—[Mr. Richard Wainwright.]

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 227.

Division No. 271.]
AYES
[7.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fell, Anthony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Aitken, Jonathan
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Alison, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knight, Mrs Jill


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Knox, David


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lamont, Norman


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lane, David


Awdry, Daniel
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fox, Marcus
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Baker, Kenneth
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lawson, Nigel


Banks, Robert
Fry, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer


Beith, A. J.
Galbraith, Hon, T. G. D.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bell, Ronald
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lloyd, Ian


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Loveridge, John


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Luce, Richard


Berry, Hon Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bitten, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McCrindle, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Macfarlane, Neil


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
MacGregor, John


Body, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bottomley, Peter
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Madel, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Eldon
Marten, Neil


Brittan, Leon
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mates, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Grist, Ian
Mather, Carol


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall, Sir John
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Buck, Antony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bulmer, Esmond
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Patrick


Burden, F. A.
Hannam, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Havers, Sir Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Moate, Roger


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Henderson, Douglas
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Cockcroft, John
Hicks, Robert
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cope, John
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cordle, John H.
Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David


Cormack, Patrick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neave, Airey


Crawford, Douglas
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony


Crouch, David
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neubert, Michael


Crowder, F. P.
Hurd, Douglas
Newton, Tony


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Normanton, Tom


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nott, John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Drayson, Burnaby
James, David
Osborn, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pardoe, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parkinson, Cecil


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Elliott, Sir William
Jopling, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pink, R. Bonner


Eyre, Reginald
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Farr, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Raison, Timothy




Rathbone, Tim
Sims, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D.


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sinclair, Sir George
Trotter, Neville


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Reid, George
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Speed, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spence, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wakeham, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Ridsdale, Julian
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stainton, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Watt, Hamish


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stanley, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wells, John


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Welsh, Andrew


Host, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wigley, Dafydd


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tapsell, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret



Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shepherd, Colin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Mr. Emlyn Hooson and


Shersby, Michael
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Geraint Howells.


Silvester, Fred






NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Allaun, Frank
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Huckfield, Les


Anderson, Donald
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)


Archer, Peter
Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashley, Jack
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Ashton, Joe
Delargy, Hugh
Hunter, Adam


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dempsey, James
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Doig, Peter
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dormand, J. D.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bates, Alf
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Janner, Greville


Bean, R. E.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A.
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dunnett, Jack
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
John, Brynmor


Bishop, E. S.
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edge, Geoff
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Boardman, H.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Booth, Albert
English, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ennals, David
Judd, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kaufman, Gerald


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Evans, John (Newton)
Kelley, Richard


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kerr, Russell


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Flannery, Martin
Kinnock, Neil


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lambie, David


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Ford, Ben
Lamond, James


Buchanan, Richard
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lee, John


Campbell, Ian
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Carter, Ray
George, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gilbert, Dr John
Lipton, Marcus


Cartwright, John
Ginsburg, David
Litterick, Tom


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Golding, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Clemitson, Ivor
Gould, Bryan
Loyden, Eddie


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Gourlay, Harry
Luard, Evan


Cohen, Stanley
Graham, Ted
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Coleman, Donald
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, John (Islington C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Conlan, Bernard
Grocott, Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Corbett, Robin
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mackintosh. John P.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hardy, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, Kevin


Crawshaw, Richard
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Madden, Max


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Magee, Bryan


Cryer, Bob
Hatton, Frank
Mahon, Simon


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Marks, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David


Davidson, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Horam, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)







Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tierney, Sydney


Meacher, Michael
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tinn, James


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tomlinson, John


Mikardo, Ian
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tomney, Frank


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rooker, J. W.
Torney, Tom


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Roper, John
Tuck, Raphael


Molloy, William
Rose, Paul B.
Urwin, T. W.


Moonman, Eric
Rowlands, Ted
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ryman, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sandelson, Neville
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sedgemore, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Moyle, Roland
Selby, Harry
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Ward, Michael


Newens, Stanley
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Watkins, David


Noble, Mike
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watkinson, John


Oakes, Gordon
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Weetch, Ken


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Weitzman, David


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wellbeloved, James


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Sillars, James
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Orbach, Maurice
Silverman, Julius
White, James (Pollok)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Ovenden, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Owen, Dr David
Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Padley, Walter
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Park, George
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Parker, John
Slewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Parry, Robert
Stoddart, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pavitt, Laurie
Stott, Roger
Woodall, Alec


Phipps, Dr Colin
Strang, Gavin
Woof, Robert


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Prescott, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Young, David (Bolton E)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Swain, Thomas



Price, William (Rugby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Richardson, Miss Jo
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Mr. John Ellis.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 110, in a page 16, line 35, leave out
'applicant and each such representative'
and insert
'company or companies concerned and each relevant trade union's representative'.

No. 111, in page 16, line 37, leave out application' and insert 'reference'.

No. 112, in page 16, line 38, leave out subsections (5) to (7) and insert—
'(5) The advisory committee shall consider any representations made under subsection (4) above and shall make a report to the Minister after the close of their consideration, giving their findings of fact and their recommendations.
(6) Where a matter has been referred to the committee, the Minister may make a final decision relating to his proposal only after receiving and considering the committee's report on it.
(7) Subject to subsection (11) below, where there has been a reference, the Minister shall notify—

(a) the company or companies concerned;
(b) the representative of each relevant trade union; and
(c) the advisory committee,

of his final decision; and a notice under this subsection shall be treated as requiring the

information specified in it to be furnished to a representative of each relevant trade union.
(8) The Minister's notice under subsection (7) above to the company or companies concerned and to the representative of each relevant trade union shall state whether or not he accepted the committee's advice.
(9) Where there has been no reference to the advisory committee, the Minister may notify the company or companies concerned and each relevant trade union's representative at the end of the period specified in his provisional notice under section 22 above, that that notice is to be treated as containing his final decision.
(10) A notice under subsection (9) above shall state that the provisional notice is to be treated as requiring the information specified in it to be furnished to a representative of each trade union.
(11) If—

(a) the Minister's final decision in relation to any information is that it shall be furnished to the representative of each relevant trade union, and
(b) in making that decision he rejected the committee's advice,

he shall make an order specifying the nature (without disclosing the substance) of the information to be furnished contrary to that advice, and accordingly requiring the company or companies concerned to furnish it to the representative of each relevant trade union.
(12) An order under subsection (11) above shall not take effect until the end of a period


of 28 days from the date on which it is laid before Parliament.
(13) During any such period of 28 days the order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a negative resolution of either House of Parliament.
(14) In reckoning the period of 28 days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House adjourn for more than 4 days.
(15) This section shall apply with appropriate modifications in any case where only part of the information furnished to the Minister falls to be disclosed to representatives of relevant trade unions'.—[Mr. Varley.]

Clause 24

CONFIDENTIALITY

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move Amendment No. 188, in page 17, line 15, leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With it we shall discuss the following amendments:

No. 113, in page 17, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
'(b) for the purposes of a reference under section 23 above, to the advisory committee or to a person whose aid is called in under paragraph 5 of Schedule [Advisory committees] to this Act;'.

No. 189, in page 17, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 190, in page 17, line 20, leave out paragraph (c).

Mr. Stanley: In the remaining six minutes left to us before the guillotine falls we can have a short debate on the meaning of this clause. We were unable to discuss it during the guillotined Committee. It deals with information which is agreed to be withheld under Clause 24, but we are here involved with the circumstances in which it will be legitimate for the Government to pass this type of information around. By definition, the information will be deemed to be likely to cause serious injury to a particular company if it is divulged. The clause concerns information which can be released without the consent of the company.
It is not immediately apparent to us why there should be any release within Government of information which is likely

to cause serious injury to a company, and certainly no reason why that information should be released without the consent of the company concerned. The Government propose that the information should be released to Government Departments and to the appeal committee as well as to the Manpower Services Commission and other bodies attached to it. We could see no justification for such a wide release within Government and we therefore tabled our amendments.
There is no reason why this particularly highly sensitive information, which, for example, could concern a company's acquisition proposals or its expenditure on research and development, should be passed around from one Government Department to another. Under the Bill the information can go to any Government Department for use in any of its functions.
Under Clause 24(1)(b) it is right for the committee to have access to it, but why should that be done without the consent of the company? There is no obvious reason why under paragraph (c) the Manpower Services Commission, the Employment Services Agency or the Training Services Agency should be entitled to it. Under the Employment and Training Act 1973 the commission already has powers to obtain information. Under that Act, also, the Minister has powers to enter into agreement with the commission to prepare a major job of relocation and job retraining programme. There appears to be no reason, therefore, why this sensitive information should be passed so readily to bodies which are outside the immediate confines of Whitehall and which, under the terms of its legislation, are semi-independent.
It must be in the interests of the companies and the employees that information which it is agreed by Ministers should be withheld from trade union representatives should be subject to the tightest commercial confidentiality, and that can be achieved only by confining its circulation to the minimum number of people. Our amendments will achieve that objective.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) has been explaining amendments which, I am sure, totally against his intentions, would


make the working of the Bill rather difficult. The amendment he moved would make it impossible for the Minister to discuss with his officials the information he had received, or for them to discuss it with other Government Departments. It would therefore certainly prevent the machinery of Government running as it should. The Government are not concerned simply to acquire information as an end in itself. We are anxious to have information because with it we should be able to exercise the functions of Government efficiently.

It being half-past Seven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [12th May and 1st July], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put successively the Questions on the amendments moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Seven o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is now my duty to put successively the Questions on all the remaining Government amendments. To save the time of the House I propose to read the amendments out by number. If any hon. Member wishes to divide on any one of the amendments, will he please say so, as I read the numbers out. I shall then put the Question on all the preceding amendments en bloc and then formally put by itself the Question on the disputed amendment. I shall now proceed to read the Government amendments by number.

Amendments made: No. 113, in page 17, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) for the purposes of a reference under section 23 above, to the advisory committee or to a person whose aid is called in under paragraph 5 of Schedule [Advisory committees] to this Act;'.

No. 114, in cage 17, line 32, leave out 'a' and insert—
'the representative of each relevant'.

No. 115, in page 17, line 33, leave out '22' and insert '23'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 26

OFFENCES, AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 116, in page 18, line 5, at beginning insert:
'(a) refuses or fails without reasonable cause to comply with a requirement of a preliminary notice under section 20 above;'.

No. 117, in page 18, line 10, leave out from 'particular' to end of line 18.

No. 118, in page 18, line 33, at end insert:
'(3A) Summary proceedings for an offence under subsection (1)(c) above may be brought within a period of six months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge; but no proceedings shall be brought by virtue of this subsection more than three years after the commission of the offence.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A) above a certificate signed by or on behalf of the prosecutor and stating the date on which evidence as aforesaid came to his knowledge shall be conclusive evidence of that fact; and a certificate stating that matter and purporting to be so signed shall be deemed to be so signed unless the contrary is proved'.

No. 119, in page 19, line 5, after 'Act', insert—
'other than an offence under subsection (3) above'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 28

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 120, in page 20, line 13 after 'means', insert:
'subject to subsection (1A) below'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Amendment proposed: No. 121, in page 20, line 38, at end insert:
'(1A) In determining the extent to which an undertaking is engaged in manufacturing industry, the following activities shall be treated as manufacuring industry so far as they relate to products manufactured or to be manufactured by the undertaking—

research,
transport,
distribution,
repair and maintenance of machinery,
sales and marketing,
storage,
production and distribution of energy and heating, administration,
training of staff,
packaging'—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 288 Noes 269.

Division No. 272.]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Allaun, Frank
Evans, John (Newton)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Anderson, Donald
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Archer, Peter
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Armstrong, Ernest
Flannery, Martin
McNamara, Kevin


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madden, Max


Ashton, Joe
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Magee, Bryan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon


Atkinson, Norman
Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marks, Kenneth


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marquand, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bates, Alf
George, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bean, R. E.
Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Golding, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Gould, Bryan
Mikardo, Ian


Bishop, E. S.
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Graham, Ted
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Boardman, H.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William


Booth, Albert
Grant, John (Islington C)
Moonman, Eric


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newens, Stanley


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Noble, Mike


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Gordon


Buchanan, Richard
Hatton, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
O'Halloran, Michael


Campbell, Ian
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Canavan, Dennis
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


Cant, R. B.
Henderson, Douglas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Carter, Ray
Hooley, Frank
Ovenden, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horam, John
Owen, Dr David


Cartwright, John
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Padley, Walter


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Huckfield, Les
Palmer, Arthur


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)
Park, George


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parker, John


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Phipps, Dr Colin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Corbett, Robin
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Prescott, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price C. (Lewisham W)


Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawford, Douglas
Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Reid, George


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Richardson Miss Jo


Cryer, Bob
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Judd, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ryman, John


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


Delargy, Hugh
Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Selby, Harry


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dolg, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dormand, J. D.
Lee, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lipton, Marcus
Sillars, James


Eadie, Alex
Litterick, Tom
Silverman, Julius


Edge, Geoff
Lomas, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Luard, Evan
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, David
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stallard, A. W.




Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Tuck, Raphael
Whitlock, William


Stoddart, David
Urwin, T. W.
Wigley, Dafydd


Stott, Roger
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Strang, Gavin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Waiden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Swain, Thomas
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Ward, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Watkins, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Watkinson, John
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Watt, Hamish
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Weetch, Ken
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Weitzman, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Tierney, Sydney
Wellbeloved, James



Tinn, James
Welsh, Andrew
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tomlinson, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Tomney, Frank
White, James (Pollok)
Miss Betty Boothroyd.


Torney, Tom






NOES


Adley, Robert
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Aitken, Jonathan
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knox, David


Alison, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lamont, Norman


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lane, David


Arnold, Tom
Fox, Marcus
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Awdry, Daniel
Freud, Clement
Lawrence, Ivan


Baker, Kenneth
Fry, Peter
Lawson, Nigel


Banks, Robert
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Beith, A. J.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lloyd, Ian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Luce, Richard


Benyon, W.
Glyn, Dr Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Berry, Hon Anthony
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McCrindle, Robert


Biffen, John
Goodhart, Philip
McCusker, H.


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
Macfarlane, Neil


Blaker, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair
MacGregor, John


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Madel, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Griffiths, Eldon
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marten, Neil


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian
Mates, Michael


Brittan, Leon
Grylls, Michael
Mather, Caroi


Brotherton, Michael
Hall, Sir John
Maude, Angus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray


Buck, Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Budgen, Nick
Hannam, John
Mayhew, Patrick


Bulmer, Esmond
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Hastings, Stephen
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Butier, Adam (Bosworth)
Havers, Sir Michael
Mills, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Churchill, W. S.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moate, Roger


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Heseltine, Michael
Molyneaux, James


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Terence L.
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Clegg, Walter
Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cockcroft, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Morgan, Geraint


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hordern, Peter
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cope, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cordle, John H.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Mudd, David


Crouch, David
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Neave, Airey


Crowder, F. P.
Hurd, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neubert, Michael


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Newton, Tony


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Normanton, Tom


Drayson, Burnaby
James, David
Nott, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)



Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Osborn, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Elliott, Sir William
Jopling, Michael
Pardoe, John


Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil


Eyre, Reginald
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pattie, Geoffrey


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kershaw, Anthony
Penhaligon, David


Farr, John
Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian


Fell, Anthony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pink, R. Bonner


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch







Price, David (Eastleigh)
Shepherd, Colin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Prior, Rt Hon James
Shersby, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Silvester, Fred
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Raison, Timothy
Sims, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D.


Rathbone, Tim
Sinclair, Sir George
Trotter, Neville


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Speed, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spence, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wakeham, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Ridsdale, Julian
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stainton, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Weatherill, Bernard


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stanley, John
Wells, John


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Winterton, Nicholas


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John
Wood, Rt Hen Richard


Sainsbury, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tapsell, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)



Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Temple-Morris, Peter
and Mr. Michael Roberts.


Shelton, William (Streatham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 123—new Schedule—Advisory Committees—

1. The Secretary of State, with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, shall draw up and from time to time revise—

(a) a panel of persons who have experience in industrial affairs as employers or managers;
(b) a panel of persons who have experience in industrial affairs as representatives of workers;
(c) a panel of persons who are barristers or solicitors; and
(d) a panel of persons who are advocates or solicitors who have practised in Scotland.

2. Of the panels—

(a) that mentioned in paragraph 1(c) above shall be appointed with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, and
(b) that mentioned in paragraph 1(d) above shall be appointed with the consent of Lord President of the Court of Session.

3. When either of the Ministers is required to make a reference under section 23 above or makes such a reference himself, he shall constitute, for the purpose of advising him, a committee consisting of three persons, namely—

(a) one from the panel mentioned in paragraph 1(a) above,
(b) one from the panel mentioned in paragraph 1(b) above, and
(c) one from the relevant panel of lawyers;

and for the purposes of this Schedule, "the relevant panel of lawyers" means—

(i) the panel mentioned in paragraph 1(d) above, if the Minister constituting the committee considers, having regard to any representations made by the company or companies concerned or by a relevant trade union, that this is appropriate, and

(ii) in any other case, the panel mentioned in paragraph 1(c) above.

4. The Minister constituting a committee shall appoint as the committee's chairman the member of the committee appointed to it from the relevant panel of lawyers.

5. A committee may, at the discretion of the chairman, where it appears expedient to do so, call in the aid of one or more persons who appear to the committee to be specially qualified for the purpose, and may settle its advice wholly or partly with the assistance of that person or persons.

6. A committee shall sit in private.

7. The Minister appointing a committee shall pay its expenses, including such (if any) fees for its members and for any person called in under paragraph 5 above as he may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine.

8. Any such Minister may make arrangements for securing that such of his officers as he considers are required are available to assist a committee.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

7.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
During the past three days we have been debating this Bill in very great detail as is appropriate, necessary and right.
The Bill has been changed partly by amendments inserted by the Government, partly by amendments accepted by the Government, and, of course, some amendments made in Committee have remained in the Bill, perhaps even against the wishes of the Government on one or two occasions. These include a requirement to develop economic policy as a branch


of mathematical economics. I think it would be helpful to discuss these further in another place and to have discussions with my hon. Friends about them. But all the details of amendments, and of amendments to amendments, should not obscure the main purpose and provisions of this Bill.
This Bill is one of the most important to be presented to this House in recent times, since its aim is no less than to help bring about a solution to the problems that have held back the regeneration of British industry to which Government after Government have sought in vain for a solution for 20 years or more.
As a nation, we have fallen industrially further and further behind our main competitors. As we have done so, we have had one balance of payments crisis after another. Each crisis has meant yet another check to the economy and further weakened our competitiveness.
No responsible Government can claim to be serving the nation unless they are prepared to face not the symptoms of our problems, but their fundamental causes. It is with these that the Bill is concerned.
As a Government and nation we have to face the fact that our investment per worker has been well below the rate of our competitors. It might not matter if this was a short-term phenomenon, but anyone who looks over the record of the last 20 years will see that throughout this period we have had a problem that has been getting progressively worse. We must therefore tackle the issue of investment in industry. But that itself will not provide the answer. Even more important, we must also match the skill of our competitors in making effective use of manufacturing equipment, and here our record must be a matter of very great concern. We simply are not getting the results.
We need to make a new and major attempt to advance industrial democracy since attitudes, pretty well as much as management and lack of investment and out-of-date structuring, have been responsible for the difficulties which have so relentlessly afflicted us.
Apart from some minor or less controversial provisions, together with the important provisions for dealing with undesirable foreign takeovers by prohibition

or vesting orders, this Bill covers three main areas. The one which has taken up most of our time, on Report at least, and also occupied a great amount of the time of Standing Committee on which I did not have the pleasure of serving is that of disclosure of information.
We have had our differences on this side of the House, just as there have been at least four different and distinct points of view put forward on the benches opposite by the various Opposition parties.
For my own part, I believe that we have got the balance about right. I look forward to the keen wind of free flowing information blowing through industry, improving relationships between management and workers and giving workers access to the information which will help them to become truly an integral part of their own industry.
I shall not hesitate to use the powers this Bill gives me to compel disclosure of information if need be. But, as I have said before, and said yesterday, I very much hope that satisfactory voluntary arrangements will mean that I do not have to exercise these powers.
For me the greatest success of this part of the Bill would be if it were to bring about voluntary arrangements for information sharing throughout industry. I say to managements who might be reluctant or dubious that nothing could transform the atmosphere more than this sharing of information with their work forces through their union representatives.
But if this free flow of information can change the atmosphere of industry, planning agreements can change its direction. How to plan an economy within a genuine democratic framework is the key to orderly and fruitful industrial progress.
Planning agreements, on which the Labour Party made proposals during its period in Opposition, are the means of creating a new partnership between workers through their trade unions, companies through their managers, and the Government—a partnership in which the three sides will come together to discuss and pool their wisdom and resources in order to increase the effectiveness of the major companies upon which our prosperity so much depends. We shall seek to do this through this real voluntary system.
The Government intend to make available shortly a consultative document which we will discuss with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. This document will, of course, be made available to Parliament.
But for me the real heart of this Bill is its provisions to set up a National Enterprise Board. One of the clearest signs of the frivolous and irrelevant Tory Opposition tactics that we faced was that, during this Report stage they chose—for it was their choice—to devote two of the three days of Report stage to the disclosure provisions of this Bill and less than a day to the section dealing with the NEB.
Under its prospective Chairman, Sir Don Ryder, the Board will have a crucial task and a number of rôles. It will, as directed by the Secretary of State in any particular case, exercise the selective powers in the Industry Act 1972, assisting industry in trouble and not necessarily just making handouts. It will ensure that the British people will obtain a return in terms of finance and control for the finance which they inject into an ailing industry.

Mr. Tim Renton: The Secretary of State said that he would ensure that the British people received a satisfactory return for the finance which they injected into industry. Will he tell us how he expects to achieve that, and what he would regard as a satisfactory return?

Mr. Varley: This matter was debated in Committee and on Report. I had correspondence with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) as to how we would determine an adequate return. That is not an easy definition. It can be made over a period of time. I recently made an announcement about the financing of the RB 211 engine. When that is vested in the National Enterprise Board it will be some time, perhaps much longer than three years, before a return on capital is shown there. We cannot be precise but we are utterly determined that there should be an adequate return.
But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) so rightly pointed out in a speech last Tuesday, it is no longer acceptable that public ownership should simply be used as a

device for propping up unprofitable concerns. It is time that the public sector was extended into profitable private industry and this will be the most important and one of the first rôles for the NEB.

Mr. Heseltine: The Secretary of State says that it is necessary for nationalisation to be extended into profitable manufacturing industry. Why?

Mr. Varley: Because it is essential. When we trace the record of hand outs of Conservative and Labour Governments to private industry over the years, we see that in some cases there has been a return but that the British taxpayers have not had a stake. We shall not allow that situation to occur again.

Mr. Heseltine: As private industry contributes £8,000 million a year in taxes, and at most gets back £2,000 million a year, why is the Secretary of State so worried at the prospect of industry continuing as it now is?

Mr. Varley: Because there are certain projects and activities in which private industry will not become involved. It wants the Government to take the risk in the first instance to put concerns on their feet, after which it wants the State and the taxpayers to leave the scene. That is not good enough for the Labour Party. We shall not have that situation in the future.
The NEB can provide a framework within which the public and private sectors—which in the past have operated largely in self-contained areas—will come together and should be very surprised if, within a fairly short time we do not find, just as we did with the Industrial Re-organisation Corporation, that industry's initial reservations about public enterprise progressively change. We shall find that this change will bring about an honest recognition of the value of the contribution public enterprise can make, certainly when it is directed in the public interest.
As we have repeatedly made clear, the Board is to have no special powers of compulsory acquisition. It will be on all fours with other companies in private ownership. Its success will therefore depend in substantial measure upon the quality of the contribution it can make to industry.
The NEB will be an agent, too, for the restructuring of industry. Too much of


British industry is outdated, inefficient, ill-equipped and unsuited to meet the challenges we face. It has rightly been said that the best of British industry can stand comparison with the best that can be found anywhere else in the world. But go much below that level and we are faced all too often with penny-farthing industry in a supersonic world. We must put that right. We intend to put that right.
The NEB must act as a channel for the investment, which has been so very sadly lacking for far too long. This is the underlying cause of our problems as the Ryder Report on British Leyland made clear. For too long in the locust years British industry ate up its own seed corn instead of preparing for future harvests. The NEB must make sure that the lean years of under-investment come to an end quickly.
We shall look to the NEB to make an important contribution to the solution of the problems of high unemployment in those parts of the country which have suffered for so long from the effects of the decline of the traditional industries. In this its work will be strongly complemented by the Scottish and Welsh development agencies, which are the subject of separate legislation, which will be subject to public debate and debate in the House and which will be major public bodies in their own right with fully separate status and answerable to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.
This Bill is based on a new partnership between management, workers and Government. We need to harness the whole of our resources if we are to solve our problems, because we must find new and more constructive methods of reconciling the purposes of industry with our national priorities.
We shall not succeed in changing old ways overnight. Old habits of thought are too deep for that. We all recognise that. This is essentially a long-term policy but one in which we are determined to provide a framework in which there is an opportunity for workers to have a much more constructive role in industry.
It is also central to our purpose that the Government should be brought into closer day-to-day touch with the heads of

industry so that it is better equipped to do its job of formulating national policies and to respond to particular problems. Our purpose is to provide the backing industry needs to prosper and expand, through offering the possibility of creative participation by the Government in the decisions of our major companies, through public enterprise, often in partnership with private enterprise, through the National Enterprise Board; and by enabling those who work in industry to play a proper part in the major decisions that mould their lives.
This Bill is a start, but only a start. As my hon. Friends have pointed out throughout these debates, the real worth of this Bill will be tested by the way it is implemented. It can simply be an interesting curiosity on the statute book, or it can be a dynamic instrument for the regeneration of British industry. We intend it to be a dynamic instrument for the regeneration of British industry. And that is why I commend this Industry Bill to the House.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Heseltine: It is customary at the beginning of a Third Reading debate, after a long Committee stage and Report stage, to thank the Ministers who have steered the Bill through the parliamentary processes. I feel at some disadvantage, because although the new Secretary of State for Industry brought charm and grace to his contribution, it was relatively short. The reality is that the three earlier Ministers, who all made speeches of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman made tonight, were sacked by the Prime Minister for doing so. I feel as though I am making the funeral speech and toast to absent friends to the other three Ministers in this Government who tried so nobly to carry through the purpose which has now landed in the hands of the Secretary of State for Industry.
In thanking the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, I also pay tribute to my own colleagues who have soldiered through 40 sittings of the Industry Committee with hon. Members on the Government side. Despite the guillotine, which I greatly regret because it has foreshortened our deliberations, the Bill has been thoroughly examined, in so far as it has been allowed to us to do so, and there has been a constructive dialogue.
Without wishing to be invidious, I single out my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King), Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) and Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) for the particularly hard work load they have carried in Committee. In doing so I am sure that I shall reflect the general view of all of us who have watched what has gone on over the last few months.
The fine phrases of the Secretary of State for Industry, who so eloquently moved the Third Reading of the Bill, showed a lack of contact with what is actually going on in the country and ignorance of the way in which Government intervention by the Department of Industry during the last 16 months has begun to reach to the point when the birds are coming home to roost.
To take the first newspaper I happened to pick up this morning, in the Business News section of The Times, there is a headline:
Norton facing end of cash support
above an article which suggests that the bizarre experiment at Meriden is about to bring down Norton Villiers, the co-operative and the jobs of the people in those two companies. A little further down the page there is the headline:
Govan Shipbuilders want £25 million more
across the page, there is a reference to the Imperial Typewriter rescue—which was to be the fourth venture in co-operation by the late departed Secretary of State for Industry—being abandoned in the new spirit of reality which the difficulties of the Government abroad have created.
I have to tell the Secretary of State for Energy that the glowing talk of partnership and regeneration may sound fine at the Dispatch Box, but it does not have much ring for the 1 million people who are out of work and the further half-a-million people who will be out of work before the next year is out.

Mr. Heffer: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the problems in relation to NVT is that the Meriden Co-operative is producing a bike that is £700 cheaper than the NVT bike, and that it is about to sell on the American market from a better position than the

bike which was produced by the original NVT company? To suggest that the workers' co-operative has failed is contrary to the truth. IPD in Kirkby is now breaking even. If I remember rightly, Govan Shipbuilders was developed under the previous Tory Government.

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman is as careful with his figures as he is with his theories, he will know that the bikes produced by Meriden are the tail-end of the bikes paid for by the taxpayer and that there is no commercial price on the bikes. He will also know that the prototype of the new bike on which the future depends has not yet been produced for NVT and that no selling price has been agreed for it. The reality is different from the situation which the hon. Gentleman tries to present.
The Bill, broadly, has two objectives, first, setting up of the National Enterprise Board with £700 million of taxpayers' money at its disposal and, secondly, the compulsory disclosure of information to trade union representatives.
I will deal first with the NEB which broadly, has two objectives. The first objective is to carry out the process of aiding industry largely for the purposes of regional policy, and that could be said to be exactly the purpose for which the previous Conservative Government enacted the Industry Act. The NEB has virtually no functions which could not have been carried out under the Industry Act which is already on the statute book, with one exception, and that is the function of deliberately taking over into nationalised hands profitable private companies.
So the only argument about the NEB outside the specific one of nationalisation is whether it is better to do what the Conservative Party did in Government, which was to handle all these regional problems within a Government Department, or to have a body called a National Enterprise Board as an agency of Government to act on the Government's behalf. That is a very fine distinction on which the arguments are evenly balanced and I do not wish to detain the House with the niceties of those arguments. Those arguments are so easily resolved between the two sides of the House that they would not have taken a day and a half in Committee.
The Committee's time has been absorbed because, underlying the first half of the Bill, is the determination that industrial power, which is now spread widely throughout Britain, should be gradually eroded and transferred to the State. The NEB has as one of its principal purposes that transfer of power from the ordinary people of this country to Government, Whitehall and the State. If ever there were a moment of time in our history when we cannot afford to spend £700 million on nationalising profitable companies it is today.
At any time nationalisation is unpopular, as is shown by opinion surveys. Every nationalised industry is losing money. The responsivness of nationalised industries to the market is insensitive because they are guaranteed a monopoly position, and virtually all of them feature among the most over-manned areas of the British economy. If that is the standard we are now to apply to those industries which are profitable and able to stand on their own two feet, it is little wonder that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced to the Dispatch Box in a panic at the beginning of this week to try to explain why the follies of the Government were about to come to an end.
Every time Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box in the name of the Labour Party and argued in favour of nationalisation, the eloquence of their words has always carried the same message—a new beginning, a new partnership, a different relationship in industry and a real and adequate return for the taxpayer. I have heard all Labour Ministers do that ever since I have been in the House. I have watched the Bills go through, I have watched the industries being transferred from private to public ownership and, as night follows day, I have watched the losses escalate as politicians of all parties began to intervene in the way that they always will. I say "of all parties" because the moment the management of industry is entrusted to the politicians, the priority ceases to be the economic interests of the country and becomes the political interests of the Government.
There are some good reasons for intervening in the public sector and there are some bad reasons, but what is incontrovertible is that the moment intervention occurs the losses mount. We all know

that it is almost impossible to see a way in which the losses of those industries can be eliminated.
What are we saying? We are saying to the people who work in free enterprise companies that their tax rates shall be maintained at an artificially high level so that their taxes shall help to subsidise the jobs of people whose industries in the nationalised sector are not able to pay their way. That is what we are saying, and I do not believe that that is the way to maximise the use of the nation's scarce resources. So I find it incomprehensible that the Government should now bring before the House a Bill to nationalise without restraint profitable private sector companies for no other reason than that they exist and represent a centre of power independent of Government.

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman is saying that nationalised industries have shown enormous losses and have had to be bailed out by the taxpayer. That is the burden of his case. He was a member of an administration that deliberately altered the prices charged by nationalised industries during the period of the counter-inflationary policy and he introduced to the House the Statutory Corporations Bill which provide for the payment of subsidies. It was at that time freely admitted by Treasury Ministers that that is what had happened. What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude today? He is not misleading the House, is he? What was his attitude at that time?

Mr. Heseltine: If the Secretary of State for Industry had been listening he would have heard me say—perhaps with unaccustomed frankness in a political debate—that all parties had intervened. My party intervened and his party has intervened. We have all intervened, and all parties will go on intervening. But the question I would put to the Secretary of State for Industry is this: in what year, under the Labour Government from 1964 to 1970, did any nationalised industry earn what he would describe as an adequate rate of return?
I am not surprised that he sits in his place, because there are no examples, except, I think, the two years in which one airline earned an adequate rate of return. As for the rest, throughout the whole period of Labour Government when the


State was intervening, the nationalised industries failed to show an adequate return on the nation's assets that were tied up in them.
I accept that all Governments and all parties will intervene. If power is given to politicians they will use it. The issue to be faced is this: will politicians use power for the more effective use of the nation's resources, or will they seek so to fudge the issues, for good or bad reasons, that the short-term opportunism of Government is made supreme, and the long-term economic interests of the country are subjected to it?
A good example is the steel industry. Let us look at what has been done over 20 years to the key manufacturing industry of this country. First, the Labour Party said that they would nationalise it, and by doing so the Labour Government destroyed the incentive of the private sector to invest in it. Having taken over the industry, they could not make up their mind what to do with it. They conducted a review, during which time there was no investment. The Conservative Government then denationalised the steel industry. The Labour Party then said that it would renationalise the industry. There was no opportunity again for the British steel industry to do what the German, the French and the Japanese steel industries, under private ownership, were doing—to expand and invest.
Having reached this situation, the Conservative administration in 1972 said that it was time to stop and to agree to a long-term investment programme in the public sector, which would mean rationalisation, closing down some uneconomic plants, and facing the consequences of change. What did the Labour Party then do? For narrow party reasons, because there were marginal seats involved, they said, "We will will not go on with the programme of rationalisation worked out by the Conservative Government when we come to power."
The situation now is that, after a further 16 months, the steel industry of this country does not know what its investment plans are to be, because these plans have been held up by this Government. There is no need to ask the Minister responsible. Ask the Chairman of the British Steel Corpora-

tion, Sir Monty Finniston, and he will confirm that this is the position.

Mr. Varley: This is a very important issue between the two sides. It is the fundamental issue. I understand the hon. Gentleman's conversion, in that he now believes that the interference by past Conservative Governments was wrong. Is he saying that, if ever this situation should arise again, an incoming Conservative Government would never take a public stake in or take into public ownership, for example, another Rolls-Royce case, another Alfred Herbert case or another British Leyland? Is he saying now, as the responsible spokesman for the Opposition—perhaps doing my job in a few years' time—that he would never intervene in circumstances like that.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Heseltine rose—

Hon. Members: Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Heseltine: Of course I will answer. I always answer. Perhaps hon. Members opposite will be good enough to listen to the answer, as opposed to prejudging it, which is their familiar trick. Then they might learn something.
The Secretary of State for Industry has only relatively recently come to his office, therefore he cannot be expected to know that time and time again I have said that the Conservative Government introduced the Industry Act, which had powers of the sort he is talking about, so there is no great doctrinal divide between what the Conservative Government did in 1972 and the practical help to industry, which I personally support, in 1975. But there is a world of difference between that and what he is saying—that he wishes to pursue nationalisation as an end in itself, regardless of its purpose in society.
I regard the National Enterprise Board, in its doctrinal application, as a totally irrelevant act of Government at this time. But before I leave the National Enterprise Board I should like to deal with the underlying policy on which it is based. The argument is that British industry will now be put in a position where there is to be a great regeneration, and the spearhead of this is to be the National Enterprise Board, which has £700 million at its disposal. Let us assume


that this is all invested. That is extremely unlikely, because much of it will be used for other purposes, but let us assume that all that money is invested. In consequence of this Government coming to power, there has been a reduction of 15 per cent. in the investment intentions of British industry at large over the next year. The investment figures are £6,000 million or thereabouts. A 15 per cent. reduction is about £900 million. Therefore, if the entire funds available to the National Enterprise Board were all invested in this year—which they will not be—they would not be sufficient to undo the damage to British industrial investment resulting from 16 months of Labour Government.
Anyone who talks of the regeneration of British industry without looking at the figures—the scale of which is totally dwarfed by the reality of our economic and industrial problem—is talking in political platitudes and totally divorced from industrial reality.
That is the charge that I place before this Government. They have sacrificed the opportunity to galvanise British industry with a new sense of opportunity and partnership on the altar of their doctrinal pursuit of nationalisation. That is an unforgivable thing to do to this country at this time.
I should like to move to the second key aspect of the Bill—the disclosure of information. Let us be quite clear where we all stand. This is not, in the main, an issue. There is no political party that is not in favour of disclosure. I do not believe that there is any political party that would not be prepared to legislate for disclosure or to have disclosure of information backed by legal enforcement. Certainly the Conservative Party is committed to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] As hon. Members have asked me, I can tell them that we did it precisely in the Indusrtial Relations Act Bill, which the Labour Government has repealed.

Mr. Ron Thomas: It was mentioned in the Industrial Relations Act. As I recall, the Conservative Government then asked the CIR to look into it, it produced a report and then the Conservative Government forgot about it altogether.

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Member had read the Companies Act he would have seen that there was a great deal of advance made in regard to this situation, therefore it is clearly on the record that the Conservative Party would legislate in this field. It is not an issue. The only issue is as to the way in which we set about doing it. Our view is clear—that it is right that there should be disclosure but not disclosure of a sort that is likely to damage investment prospects and employment levels in this country. We believe that the Bill as originally drafted went exactly in the direction in which it was likely to have an adverse effect on the possibility of creating new jobs in Britain.
I think that the House of Commons last night, in its wisdom, improved the Bill in a remarkable way, because the planning agreements under the Bill are now to be conditional upon the Government providing a very substantial amount of information before those agreements are entered into. There is to be a two-way give and take, and it at least enables industrial concerns to know what are the economic parameters in the mind of the Treasury for the next few years, before they have to give their own figures. The House was quite right to make that stand last night.
The second improvement that the House made last night was to Clause 20, which deals with the disclosure of information. Before companies can be expected to give information about their forward intentions, the Government are to provide companies, for the period that is relevant to their forward plans, with detailed forecast information about the economic parameters. That is a very important step forward, in co-operation between the Government and private industry.
I welcome the fact that so many hon. Members on both sides supported this proposal, and I am only sad that the Government resisted this new opportunity for a genuine partnership. It was wise of the House to resist the Government's attempt to renege on what I believe to be the part of the bargain that they ought to have been prepared to offer. So I praise the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) for his work—

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Labour.

Mr. Heseltine: Everyone knows that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Labour Party. Everyone knows also that there were Conservative amendments on the Notice Paper doing very much the same thing in Committee. So there was all-party agreement. although 170 Conservatives went through the Division Lobby and only 50 Labour Members. So the credit is almost evenly divided.
Let us bury the differences which Government supporters below the Gangway seek to exaggerate. Let us agree on the consensus that we have reached. I do not see why members of the Tribune Group should seek to undermine their good work last night. We have achieved something together. Let me stretch the hand of friendship across the great sea which divides us. Who knows what we may be able to build upon in the future if we see this as the base for further cooperation and partnership?
But whereas we may have improved the Bill in this respect, there is still the element of compulsion about the disclosure powers which I and my party resent deeply. It was in flagrant contradiction to what the Government said before the General Election. They said that they would be voluntary. It was only after the election, when they thought that they had the power, that they went back on their word.
I give only one example to the House of why I believe Government supporters have failed totally to understand the damage which the compulsory nature of these disclosure powers may have. I give only one example because many hon. Members have heard the argument before.
I ask the House to consider the situation of a major international company trying to decide whether to create jobs in Britain or somewhere else in Europe because it is looking for a European manufacturing base for its products. In every other European manufacturing country, it will be welcomed by the Government of the day. It will be given every facility to set up its manufacturing there, to create jobs there, to create exports from that country, and to add to the real standards of living of the German, French or Italian people.
If that company has to decide whether to come to Britain, the first matter that it

must consider is that legislation is about to hit the statute book which will compel it to disclose to the Government virtually all its innermost secrets.
Next, the company will find that it has to hand over almost all that information to trade union representatives who do not work for the company but who represent the people working for the company. No such sanction will be imposed on the company if it goes elsewhere. How many companies do members of the Tribune Group think will come to this country?

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your assistance, in view of the very brief speech made by my right hon. Friend compared with the very long one to which we are now being subjected? Many hon. Members wish to take part in this very short but important debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Everyone in the House knows how long this debate can last.

Mr. Heseltine: I knew that I should not have given way so often, because I realised that I had a great deal to say. However, I am about to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
If the company which I was describing decided to invest here but did not want to reveal its secrets and went through the appeal procedure which is now included in this legislation, it would know that the ultimate sanction was that there could be a debate on the Floor of the House, when the trade unions would not know what information they had not been given, and hon. Members would not know what information had been withheld. However, there would be a wide debate in which no doubt the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) would explain the evils of multinational companies and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) would explain how we ought to have more cooperatives, but in which the climate of our industrial outlook would be exposed to the company which was considering creating jobs here. If anyone imagines that the company would not be deterred and that jobs would not be lost to the country, he can have no concept of what is meant by industrial confidence.
I summarise the Bill by quoting an advertisement which appeared in the


house journal of the Department of Industry this very week. Presumably it was aimed at the audience to which that journal circulates. It says:
Goodbye Britain. Plan your escape now with the 1975 guide to emigration, 'Living and working abroad'. Send £1·10, including p. &amp; p.
In our view, that advertisement typifies the attitude that this Bill engenders. It is an irrelevant and expensive Bill at a time when unemployment is rising, investment is slumping and Britain is immersed in one of its worst economic crises since the war. The Opposition will vote against the Bill decisively.

8.27 p.m.

Mr Heffer: We have just listened to a typical Oxford Union debating speech by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I remember debating with him at the Oxford Union about two years ago. He has not improved one little bit on the debating capability that he showed on that occasion.
Before making any comments on the Bill, I want to pay tribute to one or two hon. Members who are not present this evening, for the obvious reason that they are no longer Front Bench spokesmen dealing with the Bill. I pay tribute first to my hon. Friend who was Under-Secretary of State in the Department, the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). After my rather sudden departure from the Department of Industry, my hon. Friend carried the main burden of the Bill in Committee. No one who saw my hon. Friend in operation can fail to admire his tenacity and his serious work in dealing with the vast number of Opposition amendments which were moved extremely ably by hon. Members opposite. I think that the whole Committee admired him tremendously for the job he did. It would be remiss of the House not to pay him a compliment.
It is true that my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Industry did not put in his time in Committee as we did, but we all know that the sittings took place when Cabinet meetings were going on. The same position would have applied if my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State had had responsibility for the Bill throughout our proceedings in Committee. It is clear that he would not have been able

to put in the same amount of time in Committee.
The work that my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State carried out in helping to formulate and develop industrial strategy for the Government should not be underestimated. I think he made a tremendous contribution in his capacity of Secretary of State. When they recognise and understand the contribution that my right hon. Friend made over the year, not only the Labour movement but the entire country will pay a compliment to the activities of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Joseph Harper (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): What about the Whips?

Mr. Heffer: Yes, the Whips did a most remarkable job in Committee. I agree that they are right in asking for a compliment. They justly deserve one.
The Bill has been portrayed in two ways. First, many hon. Members have said that the Bill will do more than it was ever intended to do. Unfortunately the impression was given that the Bill would introduce the Socialist millennium. It was never so. It could never happen as a result of the Industry Bill. There were people in the CBI and among the employers' organisations who believed that the Bill would transform Britain into a total Socialist State. They reacted accordingly, and on that basis we heard the most exaggerated claims for the Bill coming from the CBI. That is understandable because the CBI is opposed to any extension of public ownership in any direction. In particular, it is opposed to the extension of public ownership as regards profitable manufacturing industry.
The hon. Member for Henley asked the fundamental question. He asked why we want to extend public ownership. Let me explain. The extension of public ownership is part and parcel of the philosophy of the Labour Party. That is because the existing private enterprise system has let the British people down over the years. The hon. Gentleman referred to investment as though there had been a fall in investment only in the past 16 months. The hon. Gentleman knows that in the private enterprise system there has been a fall in investment of a greater scale than in any great industrial country in the world—[HON.


MEMBERS: "Socialism!"] That is the most fantastic nonsense. We have had a private enterprise system. We have had a mixed economy with most of our industries being controlled by private enterprise.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Mr. Ian Lloyd (Havant and Waterloo) rose—

Mr. Heffer: No, I shall not give way. I am not being discourteous. I do not want to speak for too long as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
We want to extend public ownership to get, apart from anything else, the necessary investment in productive industry. That is the first point. The second point is that it has been said that the previous Industry Act could have done the job. I think of my experience as Minister of State, Department of Industry. There were almost queues of private enterprise companies waiting to get subsidies from the Government under the Industry Act, but when the Government said that they wanted something in return we were told that that represented Government interference.
It was said that we were daring to enter into the management of industry. That is said when taxpayers' money to the tune of some £2 million a day has been going into public industry. That is what is said when the Government say that they want something in return—namely, some control. No Government have ever said that they should interfere with the management of industry on a day-to-day basis. The publicly-owned industries are not run by Ministers, and it would be an exaggeration to say that they were.
It is important to remember that we need to extend public ownership because the whole structure of our class-ridden society—we are one of the most class-ridden societies in the world—is based on private ownership of the means of production, distribution and all the rest. If we want to end the class system and the power of privilege which goes with the ownership of a vast industry, we need to extend public ownership much more than is suggested in the Bill. The Bill is only a tiny step towards the type of public ownership I want to see. If full employment is to return and we are to guarantee our people a constant rising

standard of living, we need to extend public ownership on a much greater scale than is happening at present.
Private enterprise is constantly attacking the Labour Party for its policy of extending public ownership. It does so because its power and privileges are tied up with the private enterprise system. My right hon. and hon. Friends are not pushing forward an octopus and taking over every industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] The reason is that it does not happen to be in the Bill. Conservative Members would like it to be said that such a concept was contained in the Bill. They would like it to go out on the radio that the enactment of the Industry Bill will mean the taking over of every industry. They know that to be untrue. This is the kind of exaggeration which we have experienced over the years.
I wish to deal with the disclosure of information. My complaint about the Bill is that it has been weakened in a number of directions. It is not the Bill that we envisaged originally in the Labour Party. The proposals in the party programme have not been carried out to the full. Unfortunately it is an emasculated Bill, but it can still be a useful instrument. The disclosure of information to trade unionists can be one of the most important methods of involving the work force in the running of an industry in regard to industrial development and also in securing the extension of the system of planning agreements. Such a move is vital if we are to see a regeneration of British industry, since that is what is required to put our economy in order. Although I do not support the whole of the Bill as it stands, because I believe that we weakened the Bill last night, the clauses which now exist on the matter of disclosure of information are important and vital for the future of our country and our industry.
I believe that the Bill can do a great deal to help regional development. I come from Merseyside, and in that area 59,000 workers are unemployed at the present time. We need to attract industry to that area. Indeed, we have never had enough industry since the end of the Second World War. It is true to say that industry has come to the area, but we have never solved the problem of unemployment on Merseyside. This is also


true of other areas such as the North-East Coast, the West of Scotland, South Wales, Cornwall and so on. Those areas require industry. The National Enterprise Board through its policy of extending industry, if necessary on a Government basis, in the regions could be the most important instrument in the Bill.
In spite of my reservations and criticisms, plus the fact that it is not the Bill I had originally hoped for, I shall support it tonight because it is a step in the right direction. I want to go a step towards building the type of egalitarian society in which the working people, through continuity of employment, will come into their own and in which they benefit from the labour they put into industry.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I hope and I dare to believe that hon. Members in whose constituencies there are mills and factories which are closing down or struggling desperately against imminent closure will appreciate that there is a need for Government measures to deal with the restructuring of industry.
Certainly the Liberal Members do not share the complacency, which I am sorry to say has already been aired from the Conservative benches, that the Industry Act 1972 was quite sufficient and that there is no need for Government action on this front. That is not the case at all. The need is there. We need much more disclosure to workers of the purposes of the work that they are being asked to do. We need much more co-operation on a practical basis between Government and industry, both public and private. We need to develop a strategy for dealing with major industries which get into difficulties.
Therefore, the Liberal Party does not in any sense dispute the need for strong measures. But one of the difficulties is that tonight we are confronted with a Bill which is really three major Bills dressed up as one. This makes it difficult for parliamentarians and even more difficult for the public in our democracy to follow what the Government are asking Parliament to do. On the other hand, some of the proceedings in Committee

showed that Parliament is capable of overcoming an obstacle—a vast swollen Bill which is extremely difficult to discuss.
It is our view that some of the 40 sittings of the Committee represent a watershed in British Parliamentary politics. At the unofficial end of the Committee room there was the old, dreary, two-party confrontation—the last relics of something which the British electorate did its best to get rid of last year. There these dismal final scenes were being enacted. At the official end of the room official obscurity on the part of the official Government representatives was matched by arrogance, and almost unbelievable long-windedness, from the official Opposition—a long-windedness which has survived the most strenuous criticisms of it and which has been exhibited in this debate again tonight.

Mr. Max Madden: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the characteristics of the Committee was the often empty seats on the Liberal benches?

Mr. Wainwright: The Liberals have many tasks to perform in this House and are not represented by one-tenth of the number to which the votes at the last General Election entitled them. I am glad to say that the Committee survived even the occasional absence of the Liberal Member, because there was a splendid unofficial cohort of independently-minded Members from all parties, including Plaid Cymru, various sections of the Labour Party and some unofficial Conservatives who made distinctive and independent contributions to the Committee's proceedings.
If the unofficial end of the Committee room is to be taken as a token of the future, the proceedings in Committee, although patchy, indicate that there is a future, on a very much revised basis, for our customary parliamentary procedures in this country.
I have said that the Bill is really three Bills in one, and the score for the Liberals on these three is 21 against and one for. The aspect of the Bill which we have broadly welcomed is that dealing with the National Enterprise Board. Unlike the Conservative Opposition, we do not believe that public bodies should be confined to the rescue and preservation of lame ducks. We have no objection, so


long as the commercial proprieties are respected, to the NEB moving with due care into some profitable areas of British industry. We would have liked to have seen the National Enterprise Board built upon a more regionalised structure because there are great dangers in having yet one more State-dominated corporation inevitably based on London.
We hope that in time, and as soon as possible, the NEB will have a distinctive regional structure. We also hope that before long it will regard employees' shareholdings and other forms of worker participation, in ownership as well as in policy making, to be part of its mandate. In the hope that these improvements might come with time, we would have been prepared, if this had been a National Enterprise Board Bill, to give it a cautious welcome.
The second part of the Bill which was loudly trumpeted in the White Paper "The Regeneration of British Industry" concerned planning agreements. Liberals welcomed moves to get the Government properly into a relationship with specific industries and to get rid of the blanket approach to the CBI or some other body which makes the ludicrous claim to represent the vast spread of British industry.
We hoped that the concept of planning agreements might be well developed in the Bill. When the Bill appeared, however, the planning agreements part of it came as a great disappointment to the Liberal Party. The planning agreement provisions are half-hearted. They have few teeth. Above all there is little provision for the medium and small-sized business, the dynamic sort of business which is often in the lead and which is so necessary to prod the sleeping giants of industry into enterprising action.
We see great danger in that the privileges which will go with planning agreements may reinforce the dominance which large and not necessarily very efficient businesses already hold to the detriment of the small up-and-coming firms and medium-sized concerns. Above all, we regret that there is no provision for adapting the machinery of government to proper co-operation with industry. The great flaw in all the attempts to get Government and industry together lies in the fact that the machinery of British

government is so hopelessly ill-adapted to meshing in with the industrial processes, with shop floor and management responsibilities. The two worlds are still so different that mere legislation of a rather superficial kind will not bring about the necessary partnership.
The third concept, which ought to have been the subject of a separate Bill, is the question of disclosure by industry, first of all to the Government and secondly to employees. This could have been a measure of major importance and constructive value to everyone in British industry. But, alas, the way the Bill has turned out this is not the case. Some improvements have been made as a result of our deliberations while others have come about as a result of public pressure. Nevertheless, regrettably the provision of industrial information is being used as a source of privilege for trade union organisations. As we tried to make clear during the earlier debates, it seems to us a great loss of an opportunity to install a form of disclosure which would treat the whole mass of British workers, whether unionised or not, as the intelligent people they are.
Therefore, we regret the Bill as, on balance, a great opportunity lost at a time when there is an overriding need to assist British industry in its appalling difficulties, a need which the Government have recognised to their credit but, in our view, have not carried through in a statesmanlike manner, and we shall be obliged to vote against this measure tonight.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: Right hon. and hon. Members will not be surprised if my party, the Scottish National Party, returns to the theme of centralisation, to which the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has alluded, a theme which haunts us in general terms and haunts us especially with regard to this Bill. We in the Scottish National Party are not concerned whether the Bill is doctrinaire, we would not have been concerned had it even been laissez faire, but we are concerned that it is centralist.
In 1969 the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) produced a document called "Centralisation" which was headed "Scotland's Twentieth Century Nine Diamonds"—which I believe was


the card played to James IV on the eve of Flodden. This document states:
As the positions of authority within industry diminish in number, so also does the total vigour of the community run down.
That is what is happening in Scotland, and that is what the Bill will accentuate and perpetuate.
As the House will know, we sought to ensure that the National Enterprise Board should:
exercise no power, jurisdiction or control whatsoever over companies, institutions, partnerships, nationalised industries and all other industrial and commercial bodies operating in Scotland ".
We lost that amendment on a Division.
We also sought to nail down the intentions of the Government in this situation vis-à-vis the development of the Scottish Development Agency and the National Enterprise Board. We succeeded in nailing down the intentions of the Government, but we did not get the answer we wanted. We congratulate the Under-Secretary on his extremely frank remarks when he said that he could not give me the assurance
that the National Enterprise Board would not operate in the areas north of the border and west of the border".—[Official Report, 1st July 1975; Vol. 894, c. 1229.]
The Government failed to accept the group of amendments that we tabled for discussion on Tuesday last. We consider that they were reasonable amendments because they would have allowed a nation to look after its own industrial affairs. I was glad to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he said that the arguments he was hearing from all sides were clearly to the effect that the people of Scotland were well content to manage their own affairs in Scotland. Our amendments were reasonable. They would have stopped the dead hand of centralisation and enabled the Scottish Development Agency to look after the economy of Scotland, an economy much more manageable than the London-based NEB. But the Government did not accede to what we considered reasonable demands.
Our opposition to the Bill is not the opposition of the Conservative Party. As the House knows, we have supported—and we shall continue to support—the Government in their aim to create a Scot-

tish Development Association. As the House also knows, the Conservatives opposed this in this House last week, stating that the 1972 Industry Act would be good enough. If it is good enough, why have we over 100,000 unemployed in Scotland today? The irony was that it was the Conservatives' own amendment to the Scottish Development Agency Bill, which their colleagues in another place had amended and which was brought before this House, which Conservative Members in this House voted against last week.
Our opposition to the Bill is not like the Conservatives' opposition. We believe that the National Enterprise Board will not work in Scotland because it is remote and centralist. There may or may not be much good in the Bill for England, but my hon. Friends and my party are not here to speak for England. We are here to speak for Scotland and we believe that the NEB will do Scotland no good whatever.
At least the Government have been honest. The Under-Secretary said that he could give no assurance that the NEB would not operate in Scotland. I hope that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has noted his remarks that the NEB will operate in Scotland and that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not claim, in the House or outside, powers for the Scottish Development Agency which we now see that it does not have. The claims made by the Secretary of State for Scotland about the SDA have been exposed for the sham that they are. If the debate of the past three days has done anything, it has made that plain.
My party, the SNP, is the party which puts Scotland first. The Bill does not put Scotland first. That is why we shall vote against it.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Palmer: I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee. Therefore, I do not qualify for mention in the dispatches of my hon Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
I start with what is, I think, an independent observation in welcoming the Bill. The nationalisation versus free enterprise controversy, which excites us so


much in this country, does not seem to excite the same interest across the Channel. I do not think that that is because the political Left across the Channel particularly likes capitalism. That could hardly be the case in, say, France and Italy, where, apart from the long tradition of social democracy, there are two mass Communist Parties. I think that the difference is that the typical continental industrialist and manager, unlike his British counterpart all too often, is both truly professional in relation to his job and a political realist about public affairs. State intervention has few terrors for him, because to a great extent it has always been part of the system. That is certainly so in France.
Therefore, it has always been a puzzle to me to decide just why here in the United Kingdom a relatively mild measure such as this Bill should arouse such terror in the vocal section of British industry. With other Bristol Labour Members, I recently met the local leaders of the Confederation of British Industry in the West of England. They seemed to regard the Bill—it was hardly believable—as proof positive that the Government would eliminate the mixed economy and possibly in the not-too-distant future eliminate private enterprise as well.
I should have thought just the opposite, because in many ways the National Enterprise Board is the very antithesis of Soviet national planning. There is no touch of the Gosplan about this legislation. In the Soviet Union they start with the raw materials and allocate resources downwards under the direction of political functionaries. Lord Ryder has no doubts about avoiding that approach. He intends to stand no nonsense from Ministers, according to what he said recently.
The Evening Standard reported on 30th June that Lord Ryder, the appointed chairman of the National Enterprise Board, had said:
If we do not think a company is viable we will say so. There is no intention for the NEB to become the biggest hospital in the country.
The report continued:
He claimed that if the Government insisted on a lame duck being rescued, the NEB would dissociate itself from the project.

He said 'if the Government comes back and says for one reason or another it wants the company sustained, we will do what we can and charge a management fee to the appropriate Ministry'.
Sir Monty Finniston could hardly have done better than that for independence.
In a sense that quotation points my nagging fear about the Bill. It is that in the quite correct attempt, from a Socialist point of view, to provide more public control and accountability, we may end up with a new expensive outside bureaucracy that will stand between this House and the industry by which we live.
I trust that future Select Committees of this House that look at public enterprises will be vigilant on this score. As for using the NEB as an instrument for nationalisation, I feel that, despite what the new Secretary of State has said, many of my hon. Friends will be disappointed and disheartened. There are no compulsory powers. This does not surprise me. I believe that the only way to nationalise an industry in a constitutionally governed country is by an Act of Parliament for that purpose. There are no short cuts to nationalisation.
Much hope has been held out and many pages of Hansard have been filled by debates on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee about getting more trade union and worker involvement through planning agreements and the disclosure of industrial information. Some of this information will be of considerable value in negotiations and collective bargaining. Much of it should assist towards a better sense of unity and understanding between managements and the managed, but it is doubtful whether it will lead to more industrial democracy, despite the high hopes of the former Secretary of State for Industry, the present Secretary of State for Energy. I prefer the more formal methods of the nationalised industries to ensure employee influence.
I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who opened for the Opposition, not to lessen the velocity of his observations—that would have been almost impossible—but to put him right on a matter of fact. He was inaccurate in saying that no nationalised industry had made a proper return on capital at any time. It was not true of the electricity supply industry until


the Conservatives took over in 1970—they put it wrong quite successfully—and it was not true of the gas industry or the airways.
In spite of its limitations, this Bill has provided an intellectual turning over of the soil about industry, by the public debate. An inquest into the capital starvation of British industry has been stimulated and perhaps there will be action. As I say, I welcome the Bill, but I do not think that we on this side of the House should expect too much from it.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Fairbairn: I have promised the Chair to take only half the time taken to deliver the Gettysburg Address, and I trust that what I have to say will be twice as important and more widely noted and remembered by hon. Members below the Gangway and others.
There is a saying in Russia that every river eventually finds its way to the sea. This dribbling, stagnating water of the Industry Bill is about to leave the British people and British industry at sea. It is supposed to be about the regeneration of British industry, profitability, competitiveness, vitality and all those things which provide wealth in the community.
The Bill is not about that at all. It is about the degeneration of British industry, not the regeneration. It is about industrial bureaucracy. Its inexperience of any form of life would say that to regenerate something or make it democratic it must be handed over to a new creature of the State. Who would ever regard that as a reasonable concept? I believe the answer is nobody. Industry is to be placed gradually in the hands of a new bureaucracy some way under the Secretary of State for Industry, nominally answerable to this House, but in fact not at all so.
The Bill has nothing to do with the urge of human beings to have dignified employment, to be represented and to be informed, as Labour Members have pretended. This is one half of the pledge of the social contract to put eventually into the hands of the small cabal at the top of the biggest unions the power of this country. It is about that and nothing else. I should be glad to hear how it will regenerate even the smallest of industries, far less the biggest. No Minister or Labour Member has explained that yet.
It is a bad law, it is verbose, it is meaningless and it adds an enormous number of drones to society who will be running industry but giving nothing to regeneration, profitability, or competitiveness. It is just another Socialist measure based on the theory that if industry can be put into the hands of the plaster cast of bureaucracy it can be controlled and so much the better.
Poor old Scotland will have not just one of these carnivorous slouches of bureaucracy; it will have two—the NEB and the Scottish Development Agency.

Mr. Crawford: The hon. and learned Member does not want either of them.

Mr. Fairbairn: I do not want either of them, but we are to be forced to have two. One thing I do not understand about the Scottish National Party is that it believes that centralisation is rotten in London. Manchester, Birmingham or Bristol, but that it is splendid in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
The Bill is born of a suspicion, mistrust and dislike of everything that moves in industry, emotions which inspire such passionate people as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). The Bill will be yet another dead hand on British industry which is already being so wounded, handicapped and fettered by more State intervention, more bad legislation, more powers and more executives than the industry of any other nation. That is why the country is in such a dreadful pass, and the Labour Party is anxious to fasten a few more of these organisations of the State upon industry because it believes that eventually if its wisdom, through State control, can prevail, everything will be well. Will it never learn that the more it interferes the less the animal is able to move? This Bill will be a curse on British industry and I trust that it will be quickly removed from the statute book.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I am always careful to avoid making prophecies if only because people always remember when you are wrong and forget when you are right. However, I am prepared to make a reasonable forecast that the expectation of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) that


his remarks that he has just made will endure and ring around the world and resound about the ears of men long after the Gettysburg Address has been forgotten is not, on the whole, likely to be fulfilled.
We have now reached, unless some noble gentleman in another place seek to muck about with it further, the last stage of this Bill in its course through the House. We are all familiar with the extent to which the processes of getting the Bill through the House—some believe them a bit too long drawn out, a bit too etoliated—have enabled us to have a close examination of the Bill.
We always finish up with a Bill which is different from the one with which we started. It is right that the examination we give to a Bill should result in changes. However, nearly always, with the exception of this Bill, the differences are what may be described as differences of degree. We do not use Committee and Report stages to alter the principle of a Bill. We argue the principle on Second Reading and in Committee. On Report we polish, refine, make more sophisticated, sharpen or weaken the provisions.
What we are experiencing tonight is something which I cannot recall happening in the not inconsiderable number of years I have been in the House. We are discussing on Third Reading a Bill which is different not in degree but in kind from the Bill with which we began Second Reading. Those fundamental changes were not made at any time during the months of the progress of the Bill through the House, except in the last week or two.
I believe that hon. Members from both sides of the House who sat through the one hundred hours in Committee will join me when I protest that the Government have put down amendments on Report which totally change the character of the Bill. They have made nonsense of the assiduous and hard work that we all did throughout the one hundred hours in Committee. The Government, by their behaviour have insulted the Members of the Committee.
In Committee we talked and argued about many matters, but we clashed hard and fairly and in an informal way after having given the matters considerable

thought and study. The items that we discussed do not exist any more. We tried to work out and improve various provisions, but then along came the Government and they rubbed it all out like somebody shoving a wet duster across the surface of a blackboard. This is an abuse of our procedures.
If the Government were in the end to defer to an authority outside the House, and alter the Bill, not in the terms that the House demanded through its work in Committee but in the terms demanded by somebody outside—and it is bad enough that they did so—at least they should have had the grace and good sense to do so weeks, indeed months, before and thus to save us all the wasted weeks in Committee.
What is the good of talking about increasing productivity in industry if we do not set an example and increase the productivity of the House? I have estimated that in Committee, because we were discussing something that has disappeared off the face of the earth—we were talking about nothing but we did not know it at the time—we have wasted between 3,000 and 4,000 man-hours worked by highly skilled people who have very considerable responsibilities. In my view that is not good enough.
I wish to make two further points. First, I should like to say something about the speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), although I regret that I shall have to do so in his absence. Throughout the years that I have been in the House I have indulged in a little game. I sit here and listen to a lot of speeches and think to myself, "How would this speech sound to a chap who, five minutes ago, descended from Mars and came into the Public Gallery, not knowing anything about Great Britain at all, to try to get an impression of what this country was like and what goes on?" I often listen to speeches with my Martian ear to try to figure out what he would make of it.
If my Martian friend listened to the hon. Member for Henley he would probably say, "This Government must be composed of terrible fellows. That chap is saying that they are interfering with something which works perfectly. It is terrible of them to interfere with the private enterprise sector of the British


economy. Why should they want to interfere with something that works perfectly?"
I have news for the hon. Member for Henley. The private sector of British industry does not work perfectly. It has let us down. It has made a great contribution to getting us into the mess we are in.
I must tell my friend from Mars who has just decended on us—I thought that he would be sitting in the Gallery, but he is over there. This is the first time that I have seen him. Is he a Member? I must tell my friend from Mars that it is not true, as he might have thought from the speech by the hon. Member for Henley, that the private sector of British industry invests in new equipment and modernises itself more than any of its competitors. It is not true, as he might have thought from that speech, that our private enterprises are great go-getters in the export markets, leaving standing the export salemen of such countries as Germany, Sweden and Japan.
I must tell my friend from Mars, contrary to what he might have gathered from that speech, that standards of management in the private sector or British industry are pretty low compared with some of our competitors.
I must tell my friend from Mars that in the private sector of British industry a man is not allowed to grind a tool without giving some evidence of competence but that he can become a managing director without any qualifications at all. That has been known to happen. We do not have the objective criteria of management which, to an increasing extent, other countries have.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mikardo: There is not time in this short debate.
When the hon. Member for Henley says, "Hands off; leave well alone", I just gasp in amazement. There is a case for leaving well alone, but who on earth can make a case for leaving ill alone?
Finally, I turn to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. We agree with the objectives which he said the Bill is seek-

ing—the regeneration of British industry. The whole point of the planning agreements is to try to stimulate not only more investment but better use of the machinery as a result of the investment and to stimulate better standards of management.
The whole idea of the National Enterprise Board, as with other holding companies, is to cross-fertilise the best management techniques from one company under its umbrella to another. We want value for the money that the State puts into the private sector by doing it on a micro instead of a macro basis, by doing it selectively, and putting the money where it can be of most use.
Above all, we want to use this machinery to correct what may perhaps be the worst failure of the private sector of the British economy—namely, its failure to equalise the disparities between the regions of this country. Of course we want all that.
I believe that the policy put out by the Labour Party, on which many of us worked for many years, if enacted and implemented, would have done that. I believe that all the opportunities provided in the Bill, as originally drafted, if used intelligently and vigorously by the Secretary of State, would have gone a long way towards doing just that.
The changes which were made to the Bill—and above all the changes which were made in the past three days—lessened to a great extent, the possibility that the Bill could be used to achieve what my right hon. Friend has described as its purpose, to which he rightly attached great importance.
We began by fashioning a tool which would mend the cracks in the structure of the private sector of the British economy. In these past few days we have blunted the tool which we fashioned. I am deeply disappointed at the outcome. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that it is better than nothing. If the Secretary of State is willing to use it to the full, it will do a bit. But I am bound to say that since an undertaking by the Government to take effective action in this area was part of their commitment under the social contract they must not be surprised if the other party to the social contract says "You have not done your whack, brothers. Why should you expect us to do ours?"

9.22 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is probably right. This Bill has perhaps been blunted in the past few days. It is wrong to say that in the one hundred hours in which we debated the Bill in Committee we refined, sharpened and corrected it, or that the Government listened to one word uttered by Government supporters or the Opposition. All that happened in Committee was that Ministers listened, but they did not change much in the Bill. The Bill went through at drafted and was hardly altered. I accept that a word here or there was changed. However, its fundamental strength was retained and was not changed. It is only in the past few days that changes have occurred.
Let us be honest and say what happened. The Ministers who were initially responsible for the Bill were swept aside. The former Secretary of State for Industry is now the Secretary of State for Energy. The Minister of State wished himself out of office and has been sitting on the back benches ever since. Only the Under-Secretary remained to hold the Government banner in those one hundred hours. I take my hat off to him. He did a good job. He did not deviate. He was not to be pushed from behind or from the front. That was a tough assignment.
In the past few days a new direction has been given to the Bill. It has been changed. There has been a great debate which lasted many months. I wonder whether that debate extended to people outside Parliament. Great anxiety was created in industry. I accept what the hon. Member for Bristol North-East (Mr. Palmer) said about that matter. Industry expressed great concern about what the Bill would achieve if it were implemented. It is an enabling Bill and concerns the functioning of the private sector of British industry.
The Bill was preceded nearly a year ago by a White Paper, "The Regeneration of British Industry". The White Paper expressed an aim which I do not think could be criticised by the Opposition as it promised
a vigorous, alert responsible and profitable private sector.
That was the object.
But the Bill completely departed from the White Paper. It is a different animal altogether. Even so, I maintain that industrial leaders were prepared to accept the concept of the Bill if only the Government had been prepared to listen to representations and to recognise that some parts of the Bill, in the opinion of industrial leaders, other thinking persons, oppostion Members and even some Government supporters, were wrong and would not produce the results that the Government wanted.
I seek to speak briefly about one part of the Bill on which the Government were wrong not to recognise the sensible, serious representations made to them by industry. I shall talk about the requirements in the Bill for the disclosure of information. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). The Bill is a series of Bills, and the part which deals with the disclosure of information should be in a separate Bill.
The trouble with the Government is that they have introduced an Industry Bill which ignores all that is good in industry. I am not saying that everything is good, but there are some good parts where industry has developed and progressed. Nowhere does the Bill recognise the existing achievements. For example, in the little Neddies there has been established a valuable planning dialogue between companies and the Government, between companies and their employees, and between companies and trade unions. That is an achievement. It is a pity that the Bill has not developed from achievements.
Industry needs Government help and the Government need help from industry. What a pity it is that the Bill has not been allowed to evolve from the existing best practices in industry. Instead, it has apparently been drafted to deal with poor performances in industry and bad practice. That is hardly the best way to build confidence between Government and industry, hardly the best way to establish a harmonious relationship, hardly the best way to produce an alert, vigorous and profitable private sector which we know is essential for the progress of the nation and essential if we are to achieve the regeneration of the whole concept of industry.
I accept that the Bill's appearance on the scene has prompted many companies to look to their laurels. Many have had to examine the whole question of what they tell their employees. That at least is an achievement for the Bill. But the Government are wrong if they assume that Britain's industrial leaders are against industrial democracy. They are not, I am not, and nor are any of my colleagues.
Industrial democracy should have been the subject of another Bill. I see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is smiling. He is the sponsor of such a Bill but, with the greatest respect, I suggest that it should come from the Government Front Bench and be given priority. I am sure that the Conservative Front Bench would agree to that. Industrial democracy is a vast project which deserves a special Bill. The Government should not have attempted to fit it into the Industry Bill in an ill-conceived, piecemeal way. It requires a more comprehensive, unified and consistent approach. We have to work out the whole complex structure of the involvement of employees in the affairs of their companies.
The trouble with the Bill is that it attempts too much. It is a very wordy Bill which tries to spell out every detailed action required of a company and of the management of that company. Nothing is left to doubt. Everything is set down by statute. It is a Bill without spirit, a harsh Bill and an uncompromising one. A company can be ordered to disclose, in great and vast detail, its plans, its costs, its successes, its failures, its past and its future.
The Government have refused all along to listen to the real and sensible protests that have been made to them about this advance warning of a company's intentions, its warning to its competitors, both at home and abroad. We have been saying this in Committee for a hundred hours, but the Government have never taken that point. They have never accepted the simple commercial advice that has been given to them: "Do not tell your competitors everything. For goodness' sake remember that in industry there is some commercial reality which has to be retained."
The Government appear not to want to listen to commercial arguments. They

seem to want to stand aloof from such mundane matters. They seem to want to put themselves in the hands of the bureaucrats and assume that that is a better way of life, and that these mundane commercial requirements should not feature in their thoughts.
Do they not recognise the danger that they may be creating for the continued flow of foreign capital into this country? I hope they are not against foreign companies investing in this country and increasing their investments, but such companies may well fear to expand their investment in this country and may seek other places where there are not these requirements which limit a company's commercial opportunity and commercial good sense.
The Government must think again on this question of disclosure without safeguards of confidentiality. It is only this point that I would seek to make to the Minister. It will prejudice commercial competitiveness and harm companies, and in the end it will hurt their employees as well. There must be safeguards. This Bill offers not safeguards but committees of appeal, and it is wrong to have this approach. If we are to have disclosure, let us do it properly and sensibly, accepting that there must be safeguards and that there is a reason for having such safeguards.
The automatic passing of information to trade unions will do great harm to the existing relationships between an employer and his employee and between an employer and the Government. Already there is a dialogue established between many companies and the Government, and on a voluntary basis it is far better than on a statutorily required basis, as suggested in this Bill.
If we proceed without any of these safeguards, I can only say what has been said so many times in Committee—that there will be less information coming to the Government without these confidential safeguards, and the Government and the nation will be the losers. As I have said, I am not against disclosure provided that it is sensible and provided that there is a recognition that some of it must be on a confidential basis.
We shall have to get used in this country to open plan living in industry, but it will work only if each side shows respect


for each other's territory and understands that sometimes there is a need for a little privacy.
The Secretary of State tonight, in his opening speech on Third Reading, said that he thinks that the Government have got the Bill "about right" at last and that he hopes to obtain all he wants by voluntary means. That is at least a hopeful sign to me. It is a change of tune. It may be a change of tune that many Labour Members do not like, but it is a change of tune, though not a change of the Bill by the Government.
But there has been another change affecting this Bill, since the Prime Minister recognised the reality of industry's concern about it. The Bill started off fiercely as a wolf ready to devour any prey, huffing and puffing and ready to blow the house down. What the Prime Minister has done is to dress it up. In a way typical of the Prime Minister, he has now put it into sheep's clothing, but it is still the same wolf underneath, and it deceives no one. The Bill has been debated for months, and it has not changed in any significant way. The Government have ignored advice all along the line. All that has happened is that the Bill is now under new management.
It is a great enabling Bill. It gives the Government immense powers to intervene in the management of industry. It gives the Government power to strengthen the hold which trade unions already have in industry. It gives the Government further powers to introduce politics into business decisions. It gives the Government power to take over great chunks of the private sector of British industry. These are frightening powers for any democratic Government to assume.
We can only hope that the Government will not try to use those powers. I hope, from what I heard the Secretary of State say tonight, that he will rely on voluntary means and not push this Bill to its utter limits, because, if he does the latter, he will go a long way to destroy confidence in British industry and he will not produce the regeneration of British industry that we all want to see.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: As an hon. Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, I

am conscious of a certain dilemma in trying to assess the merits of this Bill, and I know that that dilemma is shared by quite a number of my colleagues. Many of the arguments from both sides of the House are appealing, but I think that it must be said that the votes of Ulster Members will come down on the side of opposing the Bill.
We have many apprehensions about the clauses dealing with the disclosure of information. We are apprehensive about the lack of parliamentary supervision in respect of the wide powers which are assumed by the Secretary of State for Industry. We are also apprehensive about the share of the national cake which the public sector is receiving and will continue to receive at a time when the nationalised industries are not revealing encouraging returns on investment.
Having said all that and having aired those apprehensions, it must be said that Northern Ireland could not remain for very long unaware of the importance of Government involvement in industry. It must be said, and I say it readily, that this Government have met the peculiar and exacting demands of the Ulster situation in a very benevolent way. Indeed, successive Governments have kept industry alive in Northern Ireland by their direct involvement and their regional development policies.
However, there is one fact of human nature which, unfortunately, compels me to oppose this legislation. It is the unfortunate, apathetic dependence on apparently endless Government resources. There is not much evidence on either side of the channel that the nationalised industries and the workers involved in them are motivated by some patriotic dynamism. Instead, there is something psychologically depressing which tends to make workers involved in the nationalised industries lapse into a sense of utter dependence on another, namely, the Government.
Let a man accept that quality, integrity and volume of production will ensure a prosperous future. Let a man accept his share in investment and in the imaginative policy of worker participation, worker investment and the sharing of profits as a basic premise, and I believe that we have the beginning of a true formula for prosperity.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Nursing Homes Act 1975
2. Export Guarantees Act 1975
3. Hearing Aid Council (Extension) Act 1975
4. Diseases of Animals Act 1975
5. Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1975
6. New Towns Act 1975
7. British Leyland Act 1975
8. Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1975
9. Friends' Provident Life Office Act 1975
10. Sheffield City Council Act 1975
11. James Hugh Maxwell (Naturalisation) Act 1975.

INDUSTRY BILL

Question again proposed.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Giles Radice: Mr. Giles Radice (Chester-le-Street): The Bill is mainly important because it sets up the National Enterprise Board. A lot of nonsense has been talked about the NEB, and particularly by the Conservative Party. It has repeated its mistakes yet again tonight. It is implied that somehow the setting up of the board will bring industry to its knees. That is nonsense. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said, some of my hon. Friends have sometimes implied that the setting up of the NEB will in some way bring about the Socialist millenium. Well, it will not do that either. However, it will provide the British Government with potentially a highly effective instrument of intervention that will be the equivalent to and in many ways the superior of those instruments that exist in the Continent of Europe and in other industrial countries.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has said, in most other industrial countries the introduction of a body such as the NEB

would have been warmly welcomed. There would have been none of the absurd hysteria that we have had from the Conservative benches or from the CBI. I have spoken to managers in my constituency about the Bill and it is my experience that they do not echo the criticisms that are being made from the Conservative benches. On the contrary, like the majority of trade unionists, including members of my own union, the Union of General and Municipal Workers, they think that it will be extremely valuable and helpful to industry.

None of those who took part in the proceedings in Committee would claim that the National Enterprise Board, as it has emerged on Third Reading, is perfect. The board should be able to buy shares in the open market. It should be able to operate more freely in other areas of the economy apart from the manufacturing sector. It should have far more resources.

But what is more important is how the NEB operates in practice. That will depend partly on those who operate it and work it. The appointment of Lord Ryder was criticised in some quarters. I think that it was criticised unfairly and I wish him well. I was pleased to see that he did not envisage the NEB as a hospital for sick industry.

The success of the NEB depends on whether it operates within a clearly defined strategy. It has only limited resources and it cannot dissipate them purely on lame ducks. If we are to improve our industrial situation we must concentrate our resources on export industries and on import-saving industries. The basic job of the NEB must be to back winners, not merely to prop up losers. I would not argue that the NEB does not also have a social role to play. I am hopeful that in regional policy the NEB will play a constructive role, but it will have to concentrate on job creation, not just on being a hospital and on propping up jobs that are in difficulties.

What I have said about the NEB in relation to its having a clearly defined strategy is relevant to the Department of Industry. That Department must play a positive role in industrial planning in concert with the NEB, which is doing a useful job. The planning agreements will be useful in the future, but they will take some time. We need a clearly defined plan now for national survival.

I turn to the provisions of the Bill dealing with industrial democracy. It is often said by Conservatives that they are in favour of more information, but when it comes to voting for more information for trade unions they seem to be reluctant to give it. It is not just related to information for trade unions but also to information for companies. That is why on an earlier occasion I supported the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) which would have provided more information.

It is becoming clear that we also need an institutional framework for industrial democracy. Some of us have been busy in the Standing Committee on the Industrial Democracy Bill in seeking to provide at least one institutional option. I hope that the Government will make a start in the near future on implementing their intentions for industrial democracy. That will bring the information requirements in the Bill into proper perspective.

I was honoured to be a Member of the Standing Committee on the Industry Bill and I have the honour to support the Bill on Third Reading. I do so in the belief that it represents a milestone in the Government's relations with industry and will provide the Government for the first time with an effective instrument of intervention.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Tim Renton: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) said that Conservatives regarded the National Enterprise Board as a body likely to bring British industry to its knees. What a distortion that is of everything we have said throughout the many long sessions in Committee.
We feel that the NEB is a frivolous and expensive exercise which the nation at present can ill afford. We believe that it is unnecessary and misconceived. It is unnecessary because there are existing institutions available which can funnel help into manufacturing industry. It is misconceived because it is a fundamental mistake for the State to move, by acquisition, into the control of profitable sectors of industry. Furthermore, it is a mistake for its enterpreneurial and acquisitive role to be fused in one organisation with

the rôle of conducting the rescue operation or acting as a banker for failed enterprises.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said, the existing legislative framework under the Industry Act 1972 provides all the necessary help for industry which finds itself in temporary trouble and all the help needed for assisted areas. This has very great potential and is an important vehicle at the present time. In regard to institutions whose purpose is to funnel help, there are sponsoring Ministers and there is also a new and strengthened system in Finance for Industry. We are pleased to know how many applications for loans have been received. Obviously Finance for Industry can be strengthened and its capital base can be enlarged so that it can provide more funds.
In our approach to these matters we should study the examples set by the French. Their revenue is provided by the State for the implementation of five-year plans. It is provided by the means of Credit National rediscounting the banks' medium-term loans to industry and thus effectively assuring industry of subsidised loans. There is no reason, in my judgment, if there is a need to improve the mechanism for channelling the money into industry, for a similar rediscount facility to be examined for the clearing banks at the Bank of England, and there is certainly no shortage of funds from the clearing banks at present.
Therefore, there can be no question of the National Enterprise Board being required to fulfil the functions that it is given under Clause 3 of the Bill. Nor is there any possible need for the NEB to come into being in order to handle planning agreements.
As we have heard, many companies already enter into voluntary discussions about their future planning with the Secretary of State. If this is to be developed, why not let it be developed through a committee of the National Economic Development Office? That would represent the Government, industry and employees, and one of its functions could be the handling of planning agreements. With these aspects removed we come down to the basic function of


the NEB being simply the overt acquisition of profitable companies,
extending public ownership into profitable areas of manufacturing industry
I have no doubt that those are the most significant words in the Bill. It is in this respect that the Bill is utterly disastrous.
I am opposed to nationalisation in any case. I believe that what belongs to everyone belongs, in fact, to no one, and, because it belongs to no one, no one is concerned about its success. Employees in nationalised industries feel far less involved in the viability of their concern than employees in a private company, who are really concerned and mixed up in the success of the enterprise.
I object to other aspects of nationalised industries—for example, privileged access to State capital. I do not want to go into this tonight because other hon. Members wish to speak. However, the fundamental point underlying my opposition to nationalised industries is that throughout the mixed economies of the Western world they have been a failure. As hon. Members have said tonight, if it is in this way that the Government seek to regenerate British industry, they are condemning us to many more years of failure.
Labour Members have frequently especially in Committee, quoted Italy as being a good example of a country where State involvement in industry has succeeded. I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen of what has happened in Italy. First, the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction is losing money—it is losing more money this year than last year. Moreover, it draws only one-tenth of its capital requirements from the State. The balance comes from the capital market through its subsidiary companies and through joint participation with private companies. Those arrangements oblige the IRI to earn a return on capital employed which is in line with normal commercial returns.
It is on that point that we have never managed to obtain guidance from the Secretary of State for Industry. He did not give us any guidance when I intervened during his opening remarks tonight about what sort of adequate return the NEB will be seeking. The Government have constantly huffed, puffed and fudged on this issue. They have come up with

no figures, because they cannot produce any which they will be able to live up to, on how the NEB will justify itself.
The State oil industry in Italy is in tremendous trouble due, according to its deputy-chairman, to the intermarriage between business and politics. The same deputy-chairman of the State-owned oil company has recently said that the atmosphere in that industry was comparable to the continual palace revolutions of the late Roman Empire.
There is another State-owned industry in Italy at which hon. Members who are so enthusiastic about nationalisation should look. That is the very recently formed State-owned mineral agency, EFAB. It started only four years ago. It was acclaimed with great trumpeting at the time, in the same way as with the NEB tonight. In four years it has taken over 43 public companies. It has quadrupled its turnover to more than £450 million and at the last count it had made a loss of £100 million. It is now in great disarray because of the recent take-over of shipping, insurance and newspaper businesses.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Tell us about private industry.

Mr. Renton: Those are examples of State ownership at which the Labour Government should look. There is no record anywhere in the Western world of a nationalised industry competing successfully in fair trading competitions with private industry.
I am forced to the conclusion that the main reason for the creation of the NEB is to satisfy the Peter Pans in the Labour Party's Left wing. To justify its creation there have been a series of platitudes to tonight from the Secretary of State. He has spoken of creative participation but has not given us one hard fact. What will the NEB do? It will serve the industrial ambitions of the Secretary of State and it will be an expensive pleasure ground for tuft-hunting, retired industrialists and trade union leaders. To spend £700 million to achieve these mediocre purposes is a luxury that the country cannot now afford.

9.58 p.m.

Miss Joan Maynard: My theme is the urgent need to extend public ownership. I very much


regret the fundamental alterations to this Bill which have taken place in the past three days. I say to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) that if the private industry about which he has been talking had anything like as good an investment record as our publicly-owned sector we would not be in the mess we are in today.
I represent part of the city of Sheffield, a city whose prosperity is based on steel, part of which industry is in public ownership. It is interesting to note that the lucrative part, Special Steels, is in private ownership. It should be a first priority of the Naional Enterprise Board to reorganise the Sheffield-based Special Steels so that it can be returned to public ownership. This would mean a reversal of the policies of the last Conservative Government which transferred licences and assets back to private industry.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Mr. Michael Marshall rose—

Miss Maynard: Special Steels should be looked at in total.

Mr. Marshall: Mr. Marshall rose—

Miss Maynard: It does not compete with the British Steel Corporation because the Corporation produces a different type of steel.

Mr. Marshall: Mr. Marshall rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. Lady does not wish to give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Miss Maynard: Special Steels should be served by a separate management structure. Many of the prime customers of Special Steels are funded by public firms. This is another reason why it would he particularly appropriate for the attentions of the NEB. Some of the customers for special steels are in aerospace, nuclear power, North Sea oil, North Sea gas and coal mining. This is a sector of the industry which has a high potential market but under its present private ownership it is not equipped to exploit this potenial to the full and is in no way realising this potential. Much of the work on oil rigs and gas rigs goes to firms outside Britain. The National Enterprise Board would do well to start

setting up a special steels section under public ownership. It could start with such companies as John Firth Brown, Osborne Steel and Daniel Doncaster.
I want to come back to the remunerative special steels industry's market. At the moment, Doncaster of Sheffield have their shares listed at only 45p per share but there has been a bid for this company by the International Mineral Corporation, a Canadian multinational, no doubt using American capital, of 101p per share. This indicates how remunerative is this market.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Mr. Michael Marshall rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Lady does not wish to give way she need not do so.

Miss Maynard: I end by stressing that this very remunerative market should be taken into public ownership and I would reiterate a point made by my hon. Friends and others outside this House that we do not want to take over only "lame ducks". We want to take over some of the profitable sector—and the National Enterprise Board would do well to start with Special Steels, which are a remunerative operation.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Lady the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), because while I would not wish in any way to embarrass her I felt that she had intervened in this debate tonight to make what was largely in one sense a constituency speech, and in another respect a special plea to the House on a specific proposal for the future activities of the National Enterprise Board. I did not know that the hon. Lady was to put forward these views tonight, and being conscious of the limited time available under the guillotine I shall be brief in putting forward my argument.
The hon. Lady has brought immediately to the attention of the House many of our worst fears over this legislation. She has suggested that there is here a profitable sector of British industry which, if one compares it with the British Steel Corporation, shows precisely what has happened and the difference between success and lack of success.
If one looks at the companies that the hon. Lady has mentioned, over the whole independent steel sector in the period since nationalisation the return on capital for the British Steel Corporation has been zero, apart from two years when it had figures of 2 per cent. and 6 per cent. Over the whole of that same period the special steels sector has had returns of between 10 and 15 per cent. every year. That illustrates the profitability aspect.
As regards employment over the same period, much as one regrets the problems of hon. Members on all sides, the British Steel Corporation has made 40,000 workers redundant while independent steel producers have increased employment opportunities. Over the same period the independent steel industry has been operating profitably and employing more people. It has been producing goods that people wanted, meeting consumer demand. The British Steel Corporation has not been meeting consumer demand. It has been unable to meet its export commitments, and it has seen imports of undersea steel pipe building up, whereas the independent sector has been exporting successfully at great profit to this country. That example highlights the dangers of the doctrinaire way in which the Labour Party will operate the Bill. It is well that within the House we have opportunities to see reality more closely.
Like other hon. Members, I have sat through the hundred hours of Committee and through the whole of the Report proceedings, and now this debate. I share with Labour Members a sense of disappointment that the Bill, which had the opportunity to be constructive, has in many ways been used simply as a hobby horse for the doctrinaire arguments that we have just heard.
I do not want to end my speech without a word of compliment to the Labour benches. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) played a significant part in the Committee proceedings. Because he made a certain political gesture, we lost him as Minister of State. I would not want the occasion to pass without saying that we regard his work in Committee as valuable. He was plain and honest, and he told us what the Bill was all about. Since then, there has been

a steady decline, with obscurantist uncertainty creeping in. We felt more and more that the Committee was being used as an experimental test tube, while the decisions on the Bill were being worked out at No. 10, Downing Street, with Ministers being used as the final sounding board before No. 10 spoke. It is hard for us to accept that the Bill now before us is meaningful. I think that it is open-ended, with dangers of the kind that I described earlier.
One thing that was brought out very clearly on Report was the Government's total inability to meet constructive criticism, from whatever quarter. We say a total unwillingness to meet the regional views. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) presented balanced arguments for the use of the Welsh Development Agency, and other hon. Members argued for the use of the Scottish Development Agency. That argument was ignored. Similarly, the whole argument that members of the NEB should have qualifications which would give us some assurance that they knew what they were talking about was brushed aside by the Government. There was also a refusal to have a more realistic definition of the NEB's functions.
All the way through there has been a total failure by the Government to accept constructive views, from whatever quarter. We had a refusal to make information available to all employees. There was also a refusal, until it was voted down last night, to make more information available from the Government. Finally, we had the rejection by the Government of amendments which would have given a mechanism for appeals, or at least a more honest and open approach, by taking the court of last resort away from the Secretary of State. As we heard earlier, the Bill has been reduced to a Gilbertian state.
In many ways, the Bill is now out of touch with reality. It does not have the approval of the majority on both sides of the House. It ignores the representations made from outside.
There have been many views from all parts of industry and informed quarters which the Government have ignored. Right at the outset, the Institute of Directors put forward some constructive views to get better parliamentary accountability


for this legislation. I declare a passing interest as a Fellow of the Institute, but hon. Members opposite have put forward the views of trade unions and it is right that they should be reminded of other views.
The Institute asked that details should be brought before Parliament whenever action was taken by the NEB. They wanted Parliament informed of the aims of any action, why the Minister thought these aims would be achieved, who would be responsible in the board or Department for carrying out this action and any views the Industrial Development Advisory Board had on the matter. Such views are precisely the kind of views the Government have ignored.
Those of us who served on the Standing Committee feel that we were only experimental, murmuring noises in the background while higher powers bargained outside. It is because of our resentment of that attitude and the fact that we regard this Bill as a blank cheque which, if cashed, will implement the sort of doctrinaire views we have heard from the hon. Lady the Member for Brightside, that we shall oppose the Bill so strongly.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On Second Reading my party supported the Bill because we believe that considerable changes are needed in the structure of industry in Wales. We have suffered from the failures of both private and public industry. We looked to the Bill as a base on which to build, although there were many points on which we had fears, including the centralisation it involved.
We tabled 350 Amendments in the Standing Committee. Some were consequential, but they covered 30 major issues. Unfortunately only two have had any success.
I believe that the contribution of my party and the amendments tabled by us and the Scottish National Party contributed constructively to the Committee debates, and this is borne out by the fact that hon. Members of all parties supported various of our amendments.
We have much sympathy with many of the Bill's objectives, particularly those relating to genuine disclosure. We have some doubts about other aspects of the measure, but we do not accept much of

the Tory criticism. The failures which we see in this Bill are not the matters on which the Conservative spokesmen have concentrated.
In our amendments there were five main points. Firstly, we were concerned with the dangers of centralisation. We are opposed to State capitalism because it has the same dangers we have seen in private capitalism and does not solve the problems of people at their work place or get employment to areas such as many of those in Wales.
Then there is a need to clarify the relationship between the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. We have put this point to Government Ministers many times, but it has still not been answered.
There is a need to transfer to employees much more control from centralised organisations, whether they are companies or a State. We do not want centralised corporations, whether in the public or private sectors and this Bill has gone a very little way towards meeting this requirement. We believe that there should be disclosure even more than is already in the Bill—but that it should be made to all employees, not just to those who represent trade unions. We believe there is a real danger of building a structure that embodies second-class citizens within the legislative function of this Chamber. Finally, I believe that disclosure should be plant oriented. As much authority and responsibility as possible should be passed down to plant level so that the employees there can be involved to the maximum possible extent.
In all these ways we had hoped that our amendments might have built this Bill into something useful, yet in that objective we have failed. Our failure on the questions of the relationship between the NEB in Wales and the Welsh Development Agency, and the question of greater control for employees at plant level, are to us critical. Neither of these has been met and there is now a danger that the control of companies in Wales will be moved to London as a result of the operations of the NEB in Wales.
We could create a new form of democracy in industry and my party believes that to be highly necessary. However, with this Bill, we shall only further


nationalisation of the old type, the type which has failed in Wales in coalmining, the railways and steel, and we fear that that will be the pattern for the future. We believe that that is a centralising mechanism moving towards a corporate State. We do not need that power in Wales because we shall have the Welsh Development Agency, which we support, which already has the powers necessary to do the job in Wales.
The NEB in Wales will at best confuse the situation because there is no clear delineation, and at worst it will further centralise control of our industry. We need industrial change in Wales, but this Bill does not give us the industrial change that we seek, and we fear that it will give us only more of the failed and outdated forms of centralised and State capitalism. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said that the Bill is better than nothing In Wales we have more than nothing we have the proposals for the Welsh Development Agency. We therefore do not need this Bill and we shall oppose it.

10.17 p.m.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I have been astonished at the differing descriptions that Conservative Members have presented of the Bill. It has been astonishing, too, to hear their descriptions of the British economy and British industry. The pictures that have been painted have depicted our economy as being virtually wholly publicly owned with all the faults in it being laid at the door of the nationalised industries. A very small proportion of it is publicly owned—about 10 per cent., or less, as we were constantly told during the referendum campaign, than in the other EEC countries.
The industries which are publicly owned were by and large grossly unprofitable and in a very inefficient and rundown state when they were taken into public ownership. They were nationalised in order to keep basic services running for the benefit of the economy as a whole, an economy which, as I have pointed out, is mostly privately owned.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Heseltine rose—

Mrs. Wise: I shall not give way to the hon. Member. He took a considerable amount of time in opening and I

understand that we shall be having a closure soon. Our economy is neither healthy not internationally competitive and it does not safeguard employment. The Bill is aimed at correcting those three defects. Our industry is uncompetitive internationally, and unemployment is growing. It is privately owned for the purpose of making private profit. It is not run for the benefit of the workers, the consumers or the nation as a whole. If the interests of any of those groups coincide with the interests of private profit, it is purely coincidental.
Therefore when faced with an economy which is not in harmony with the nation's needs and objectives, we placed in our election manifesto a promise to deal with the situation. For example, we said that
a new and urgent Industry Act will provide for a system of planning agreements between the Government and key companies to ensure that the plans of those companies are in harmony with national needs and objectives".
I emphasise the word "ensure", because the planning agreements clause in the Bill cannot ensure anything at all since there is no sanction. It is purely voluntary. There is no reserve power.
If the planning agreement system works, it will do so because private industry is running down so fast that even it recognises that it has no alternative but to go to the Government.
I suggest that the Bill, useful though it will be, is much weaker than was foreshadowed in our manifesto and too weak to do the job that it should do.
Opposition Members have painted a terrifying picture of the disclosure of information or, as they call it, secrets. They say that companies will have to disclose automatically their secrets, but they completely overlook the fact that discretion is written into the Bill at every stage and that the disclosure provisions are hedged around with appeal procedures. It is very doubtful how much information will be disclosed to anyone, even to the Government.
What are the secrets which may have to be disclosed to the Government and the workers? They are matters like the sales of an undertaking's products, the export of those products, the number of persons engaged in the undertaking, the capital expenditure and the productive capacity of the undertaking. It is reasonable for the Government and the workers


to take the view that they have a right to the disclosure of this type of information. The idea that this is some sort of private monopoly of management is ludicrous and is one reason why the Government could be prevented from ensuring that the correct decisions are taken in our economy.
Therefore, we are faced with an economy which is totally unbalanced. Imports of manufactured goods rose by 65 per cent. in the four years from 1970 to 1974, whereas exports rose by 35 per cent. We cannot check the figures because we do not know the distortions between imports and exports which are made through the manipulation of the multinationals.
My hon. Friends and I wanted the information provisions of the Bill greatly extended so that they would cover not only the sales of products but production volume and product development. How can we judge sales without this information? How can we judge export progress without knowing what is happening about imports? How can we judge whether a company is meeting national objectives if we do not know, for example, how many components are being brought in from abroad unnecessarily and if we have no means of developing a policy on import substitution?
Far from expecting the disclosure of any real secrets, the Bill is modest. It is also modest in the rights which it gives to trade unions. My hon. Friends and I have been disappointed by the weakening of the Bill in that respect. I believe that a great discipline would have been improsed upon the Government had the trade unions retained their statutory right to information and had it still been the Minister's duty to ensure that information was disclosed to trade unions with all the commercial safeguards written in. Had that situation still obtained, the trade unions would have had a great interest in seeing the Bill activated.
The obstacle race is such that many workers and trade unionists will have lost some confidence in the Bill's effectiveness. Nevertheless, I hope that they will press for its full implementation.
I want to add my voice to the tributes which have been paid to the Ministers

who originally piloted the Bill through Committee. I hope that their removal is not an expression of the fact that not only is the Bill toothless but that it may finish up with lockjaw. I am not suggesting that the present Ministers will lack enthusiasm, but I regard with suspicion the fact that the original Ministers, doing a perfectly good job, were removed.
A toothless Bill with lockjaw will not meet the requirements of our manifesto. Therefore, I hope that workers and trade unionists will press for the activation of the Bill and that the Government will seek to use it to the full.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I do not think that at this extremely late hour it would be wise for me to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) down the path that she pursued.
It is perhaps right, in the closing minutes of the debate, to point out that in normal times a Bill proposed by a Labour Government to extend nationalisation would, by most people's judgment, be immensely damaging. At this time of grave economic crisis it could be described as national sabotage for a Labour Government, or any Government, to propose taking over more of British industry. What is needed more than ever today is for British industry to throw off the leeches of the Socialist dogma and to get on with the job of making profits and creating new jobs for people in industry. It must not be hamstrung by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West and her fellow traveller, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard). It must get on with making profits and creating new jobs and it must not be hamstrung by such activities as those that have been going on during the passage of the Bill.
At worst, the dread hand of State intervention would be damaging to industry. At the present moment, it would be very much worse than that. I hope that the changes that have been made in the Bill, both in Committee and on Report, will blunt the worst effects that the Bill, as originally introduced, could have had and that at least the new Secretary of State, in the way that he handled this legislation


when it becomes law, will not make it as damaging as we thought it would be at the beginning. It is dangerous, but we

hope that he will use it in a responsible way and allow industry to get on with the job of making profits and creating more jobs.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: At this late hour we come to the closing stage of what, for many hon. Members who served in Committee, has been a long journey. It started on 17th February with the Second Reading. It has been a long and remarkable journey. It started in a strange way. There was a two-day Second Reading debate. There were two opening speeches by Government spokesmen. The first version was that of the then Secretary of State for Industry. At the next stage the Prime Minister quickly inserted the Paymaster-General to put in an alternative Government version on the second day. That was a remarkable start for the Bill, which proceeded in a similar way.
There were revolts in Committee. Government supporters abstained and refused to provide a quorum. There are two new faces on the Government Front Bench who were not there when the Bill started. One Minister was sacked. He is now on the back benches. I refer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I mean no disrepect to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he conducted his part of the Ministerial responsibility during the first stage of the Bill. We saw that the present Secretary of State for Energy was rapidly transferred in the closing stages, as was the Under-Secretary.
We are faced with a new team at this stage. That is a procedure without precedent. It is not the only precedent. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said that he thought the way the Committee was treated was an insult to Parliament. All members of the Opposition parties thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman.
At times the proceedings in Committee were reduced to an utter charade. The reputation of Parliament has not been enhanced by the way in which the Government handled these proceedings. It will come as no surprise that as a result of the way in which the matter was handled, and the way in which constructive Opposition amendments were treated in Committee, the Government, in what is a fairly multifarious Parliament, succeeded in uniting every Opposition party against the Bill, as it approaches its Third

Reading. That was made clear by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), on behalf of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), on behalf of the Scottish National Party, the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), on behalf of the Welsh nationalists, and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made clear the total Conservative opposition to this Bill. I congratulate the Government on what is a rare achievement. Not only have they produced total opposition from all the Opposition parties but they have received the faintest possible support from a large section of the Labour Party. That is no mean achievement for a Government with a Bill of this magnitude.
We all know that the British economy and industry are facing problems at present. The country knows that Parliament is debating the closing stages of the Industry Bill tonight. People listening to the debate might be entitled to think that the Bill must therefore be a supremely relevant measure with which to tackle all the problems now faced by British industry and that it will make a valuable contribution to the nation's problems. Those of us who studied the Bill in Committee know that that is not the case.
The Bill proposes, first, a vehicle for more nationalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley made clear its main purpose. The Conservative Government's Industry Act 1972 was intended to help the regions and to give power to the Government to help industries in difficulties. The main distinction between those powers and the powers to be given to the NEB is that the purpose of the NEB is to extend public ownership into profitable manufacturing industry.
I do not wish to be ungallant, but I find it difficult to decide whether to award the palm for the least-informed speech tonight to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) or the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). The comments of the hon. Member for Brightside on the situation in the steel industry were totally demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) who has the


advantage of 12 years' experience of working in the industry. The suggestion that the British Steel Corporation has been more successful than was the private sector steel industry is totally untrue.
If the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West is under the impression that there is no evidence that on nationalisation industries become less profitable, perhaps she could spare a moment to study the results produced by the National Bus Company and the British Steel Corporation and compare them with those of their private predecessors. She may acquire some illuminating information from those studies.
The first damage contained in the Bill is the Socialist obsession with nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. How right was my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) in saying that something that everybody owns, nobody owns and nobody cares for.
Apart from nationalisation—which is the purpose of the NEB—the other part of the Bill which has been the main subject of discussion is the power of disclosure. The Times second leading article, published on the day that the Government's amendments to the disclosure provisions were announced, summed up the situation very well. Significantly, it was headed:
You can't run away from both sides
The leader contained the following passage.
There is widespread support across the whole spectrum of industry for the idea that the quality of information and consultation with employees within a company should he unproved … If such reform is to develop, it must be based on existing best practice in industry. The worst possible climate for such development would be one in which the provision of internal information was agreed to under the threat that, if it was not voluntarily forthcoming, it would be extracted by the Minister and given to the trade unions.
That is exactly the point we have made.
It is odd that we have found difficulty in persuading hon. Members that there could be any reason for a dislike of statutory powers and the use of compulsion, and that in a situation in which the voluntary principle should be encouraged the use of compulsory powers is often counter-productive. I leave aside the pledges given by the Prime Minister to the House which have not

been honoured, the intention that planning agreements should be voluntary and the way in which the Labour Party misled the country in the White Paper, the provisions of which were not reflected in the Bill.
We believe that the powers of disclosure should be based on a voluntary principle. It is extremely significant that throughout the Committee debates and again yesterday on Report, when the Government were challenged to name one company that had refused voluntarily to provide them with information, the Minister was not able to give one example.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Chrysler.

Mr. King: The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) says "Chrysler", and he said it in Committee. It came as a nasty shock to him to find that the Prime Minister had been in discussion with the President of Chrysler at the time when he was under the impression that the Government had no conversations with the firm. He must have his argument about that not with me but with the Prime Minister.
The other charge that has been made frequently by hon. Members in this debate is that somehow British industry has failed the country. They claim that as though it is a self-evident truth, but one might consider that question in another way. Might it not be suggested that perhaps British Governments have failed British industry on occasion?
There is a very easy crack to make: "Why does British industry do so badly?" Might it not be a more valuable question—particularly for those of us in this House who might share some responsibility across the benches on this matter—to ask: "Why is it that British industry has done so well against a constant pattern of Government changes in economic policy, against a rapidly rising rate of inflation, and against consistent stop-go policies?"
If we study the question realistically, we ought to consider the latest NEDO study of the investment problems in industry. The first point made in it is that the central problem is low productivity. The Secretary of State for Industry, when asked about low investment, used to


change the subject. He never ceased to be amazed that people came to him and said that they could get 10, 20, 30 or 40 per cent. more out of their existing equipment. How in that situation are people to be encouraged to get more out of it, and how was it that the NEDO study brought out for the time time the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was not aware—nor was the Treasury, as far as is known—that the effective tax rate on industry cash flow this year was 127 per cent.? If that is the figure, compared with about 43 per cent. five or six years ago, that is the effect of cumulative inflation.
Let no one say that British industry is failing the nation or the taxpayer. The basic fact is that British industry is making a simply colossal contribution, out of its earnings, to the British tax revenue, and clearly in that situation we shall never get real investment. At last the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have recognised the central problem.
Let us imagine a situation in which a British company and a German company are both embarking on a similar investment. The British company does market research in export markets and decides that it can sell competitively with its German competitor. But what on earth does the British company do now, in the knowledge that its own domestic inflation rate on its costs is running at 27 per cent.? How can it make that investment in the knowledge that it will be competing over a five, 10 or 15-year period against a German company with a domestic inflation of 6 per cent.?
Those are the real issues, the real liabilities, facing British industry at this time, and to pretend that it has a lack of will or that these are greedy people who are not prepared to invest money, and who are failing to identify the real problems, is completely to ignore the facts. The challenge facing the House and the Government is to start looking at the real problems and the real difficulties. This Bill is a smokescreen, and a dangerous smokescreen, enabling the Government to pretend one thing to the British people while at the same time seeking to achieve their Socialist ambitions of further nationalisation. It is because of this that the Conservative Opposition will vote against the Bill.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: The House has now come to the end of the 146 hours which it has devoted to the consideration of this Industry Bill. The Bill has occasioned fierce exchanges across the Floor of the House, but what has been particularly notable has been the passionate anxiety of Government back benchers to get this Bill enacted.
I have been involved in legislation fulfilling such major Labour Party commitments as security of tenure for furnished tenants and repeal of the Housing Finance Act. These were certainly greeted with great satisfaction, but not with the urgent zeal which has characterised the support of Government back benchers for this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise)—not the most easily sidetracked or deluded of hon. Members—made this clear when, during some confusion on the last day of the Bill's Committee stage, she insisted:
We believe that the Industry Bill is worth saving."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12th June, 1975, c. 2290.]
My hon. Friends are not so ardent about this Bill because it is some wild revolutionary Socialist measure, at it has been blown up to be by the hysterical hyperbole which is the habitual substitute for reasoned argument of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Indeed, as they have made clear throughout these proceedings, their only misgivings are that the Bill might not be going far enough.

Mr. Mikardo: Is not the problem with this Bill that the Opposition reckon it is a piece of "Bennery" whereas it is worse—it is a piece of "Leverage"?

Mr. Kaufman: I had the good fortune to succeed Sir Leslie Lever as Member for the Ardwick constituency. Therefore, I ought not to be side-tracked even by my affection for my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo).
The view that this Bill does not go far enough is not simply the view of those of my hon. Friends who are members of the body called, I believe, the Tribune Group. It is held by others of my hon. Friends whose general attitudes might not even bring a blush of anxiety to the maidenly cheek of Mr. William Rees


Mogg but who, in their desire to strengthen the Bill as they saw it, nevertheless united with various Opposition parties last night to help bring about a couple of slight defeats for the Government in the only coalition that this Parliament is likely to see.
This is a Bill supported with enthusiasm throughout the Labour movement because it offers a true hope of bringing about essential changes in the ownership, management and investment policies of British idustry, and of helping to provide an essential infusion of industrial democracy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointed out, the plight of large sections of British industry today is the result of a daunting extent of lack of investment and outdated structure. The situation was devastatingly highlighted in the Ryder Report on British Leyland, which described how British Leyland's
Profit before tax … has been inadequate … despite this low level of profits BL has over the period distributed nearly all of them as dividends … over the whole period the net profits after charges including extraordinary items amounted to £74 million of which £70 million has been paid out by way of dividend. There should however have been substantial retentions to finance the increased cost of replacing fixed assets and additional working capital".
Ryder pointed out that
In the automotive industry, most machinery is replaced after 8–12 years. … In BL more than half the machines and equipment are over 15 years old. …. This record of under-investment is the main reason for the low productivity of BL's work force compared with say Fiat or Volkswagen".
It is that under-investment and that frittering away of profits, and not the work force, which is responsible for the record of British Leyland, which has led it to this pass, and which led you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to announce that the Queen had given the Royal Assent to the British Leyland Act.
Yet this is the situation with which the Opposition are perfectly satisfied. They believe that their Industry Act 1972 is the last word on the subject. They have no other proposals for dealing with the chronic and underlying investment and structural problems of British industry. It is true that under the Tory Industry

Act Government have poured out £393·5 million in cash hand outs and £79·5 million in loans, yet at the end of it all, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) pointed out, too much of British industry remains ill-equipped to meet the technological challenges from the Continent and from Japan.
The Bill provides two major instruments for dealing with these crucial problems. The first instrument is the system of planning agreements. The second instrument, which is even more important to my mind, is the National Enterprise Board. We are already at work on guidelines which will ensure for the NEB maximum democratic accountability coupled with maximum freedom to go about the massive tasks which have been assigned to it.
In two amendments tabled by Conservative Members to Clause 5 dealing with the NEB a number of detailed proposals were made concerning fair competition by the NEB and the criteria for the appraisal of investment. It is the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends that it would be a serious mistake to write into the Bill a detailed charter for the operations of an enterprise such as the NEB which, as an instrument of Government policy and a major commercial enterprise, must have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and changing national needs. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear on several occasions that the detailed exercise of the powers of the NEB under the Industry Bill will be covered by guidelines which can be amended as circumstances required.

Mr. Tim Renton: Mr. Tim Renton rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No, not now. The hon. Gentleman has blathered on the whole time and it is now time for the Government to put their case.

Mr. Renton: Mr. Renton rose—

Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps I should give way to the hon. Gentleman. He could declare a few more interests if I gave him a moment or two.
The guidelines have been the subject of some preliminary discussion with the TUC and the CBI, and there will be further consultation with interested parties, including the NEB organising committee, before they are settled.
I take this opportunity to inform the House of the issues under consideration although, of course, we shall be making the guidelines available at a later stage. The general approach of the guidelines will be to accord the NEB the fullest possible operating freedom by exercising Government surveillance so far as possible through long-term strategies and annual budget plans. The Government will settle with the board a broad framework of objectives and strategy, looking only at large individual cases.
The guidelines will cover acquisitions, loans, interest payments and the criteria for investment and pricing. The board and its companies will be subject to general prices policy and to a requirement to avoid showing undue preference in its trading relationships. The Bill itself has made clear that the board will be subject to the fair trading legislation.
The guidelines will cover financial and other objectives, the eligibility of NEB companies for the generally applicable forms of financial assistance, the discharge of duties imposed on the board under Clause 3, its employment responsibilities, its rôle in furthering industrial democracy and its relationships with consumers. In the course of the proceedings in Committee great emphasis was placed upon the threat of unfair competition from the NEB. We do not intend that the board's companies shall be given any unfair competitive advantage. The NEB will follow the City code on takeovers and mergers and the Stock Exchange listing requirements where these are relevant. The board's companies will, of course, be subject to the whole body of company law and fair trading legislation.
Particular concern has been expressed about the NEB acquiring shares without the consent of the board of the company concerned. The guidelines will require the NEB to inform the Government of any case in which it proposes to seek to acquire more than 10 per cent. of the shares of a company in opposition to the views of the company's board. The Government will then decide whether to intervene. But it would be inappropriate for the Government to come to a final conclusion about the text of the guidelines until our consultations have been completed and until, in particular, there has been consultation with the board itself.
The Opposition shrilly demand that we drop the NEB and indeed this Bill. They suggest that at a time of great national crisis consensus is required, and that it is the duty of Government to abandon contentious policies in favour of consensus policies. To the Tory Party consensus consists of all other parties dropping their own policies and adopting Tory policies. Then we are all truly non-political and objective.
If these policies embodied in the Bill were important when they were first conceived in the early 1970s, today they are absolutely essential. To deal with the crisis we face today, the Opposition put forward a range of contradictory policies from which we are asked to perm any three out of seven.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he has talked about guidelines about which, up until now, we have had no indication. When he talks about a figure of 10 per cent., this means that the NEB could be put at a disadvantage in relation to ordinary private industry. This point surely needs spelling out.

Mr. Kaufman: I assure my hon. Friend that this is not the case. I assure him that we shall return to this matter.

Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about a most significant development. Although we have considered the Bill for 146 hours, and we are now asked to give a Third Reading to the Bill, the Minister now has the effrontery to tell the House about guidelines which have never been put before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Henley has been like it for 25 years. He has not changed.
Throughout the debate on the Government's industrial policy over the last year, we have heard again and again of the need to unite the country in common cause, to end divisive policies and to seek consensus.
The deepest of divisions in our society is to be found in the concept of the managing class and the work force—"masters and men"—as Harold Macmillan could still call them only a few


years ago, those who take the decisions and those who carry them out. But the workers are no longer prepared to be the class that mindlessly does what the managing class plans for it. They want to know what is going on and to have a voice in the decisions of industry. A large part of this Bill is to provide for the destruction of this damaging and artificial barrier between the managers and the

managed, and for its replacement by a new partnership in industry.

This Bill is of the utmost relevance both to the country's current problems and to its underlying malaise. I ask the House to give it a Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 276.

Division No. 273.]
AYES
[11.00 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Allaun, Frank
Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Anderson, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Archer, Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunn, James A.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Ashley, Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kaufman, Gerald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Eadie, Alex
Kelley, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Kerr, Russell


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edge, Geoff
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kinnock, Neil


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lambie, David


Bates, Alf
English, Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Bean, R. E.
Ennals, David
Lamond, James


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Evans, John (Newton)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lee, John


Bishop, E. S.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Flannery, Martin
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Booth, Albert
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ford, Ben
Lipton, Marcus


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Forrester, John
Litterick, Tom


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Loyden, Eddie


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freeson, Reginald
Luard, Evan


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
George, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh


Buchan, Norman
Gilbert, Dr John
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Buchanan, Richard
Ginsburg, David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Golding, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Campbell, Ian
Gould, Bryan
Mackintosh John P.


Canavan, Dennis
Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Cant, R. B.
Graham, Ted
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Carter, Ray
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McNamara, Kevin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, John (Islington C)
Madden, Max


Cartwright, John
Grocott, Bruce
Magee, Bryan


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Simon


Clemitson, Ivor
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Malialieu, J. P. W.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David


Coleman, Donald
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Concannon, J. D.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Conlan, Bernard
Hatton, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbett, Robin
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Meacher, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Crawshaw, Richard
Horam, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cronin, John
Howell, Denis (B'ham Sm H)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molloy, William


Cryer, Bob
Huckfield, Les
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Moyle, Roland


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hunter, Adam
Newens, Stanley


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Noble, Mike


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Oakes, Gordon


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ogden, Eric


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Orbach, Maurice


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Ovenden, John


Dempsey, James
John, Brynmor
Owen, Dr David




Padley, Walter
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric Q.


Palmer, Arthur
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Park, George
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Parker, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Parry, Robert
Sillars, James
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Pavitt, Laurie
Silverman, Julius
Ward, Michael


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Skinner, Dennis
Watkins, David


Phipps, Dr Colin
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Watkinson, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Snape, Peter
Weetch, Ken


Prescott, John
Spearing, Nigel
Weitzman, David


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Price, William (Rugby)
Stallard, A. W.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Radice, Giles
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
White, James (Pollok)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stoddart, David
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stott, Roger
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Roper, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Woodall, Alec


Rowlands, Ted
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wool, Robert


Ryman, John
Tierney, Sydney
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sandelson, Neville
Tinn, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tomlinson, John



Selby, Harry
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Tuck, Raphael
Miss Margaret Jackson.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Urwin, T. W.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Drayson, Burnaby
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Aitken, Jonathan
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Henderson, Douglas


Alison, Michael
Dunlop, John
Heseltine, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Durant, Tony
Hicks, Robert


Arnold, Tom
Dykes, Hugh
Higgins, Terence L.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Holland, Philip


Awdry, Daniel
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hooson, Emlyn


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Elliott, Sir William
Hordern, Peter


Baker, Kenneth
Emery, Peter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Banks, Robert
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Eyre, Reginald
Hurd, Douglas


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Benyon, W.
Farr, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fell, Anthony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Biffen, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey
James, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Blaker, Peter
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jessel, Toby


Body, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bottomley, Peter
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fox, Marcus
Jopling, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bradford, Rev Robert
Freud, Clement
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fry, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Brittan, Leon
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kershaw, Anthony


Brotherton, Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kilfedder, James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylds)
Kimball, Marcus


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kirk, Peter


Bulmer, Esmond
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Burden, F. A.
Goodhart, Philip
Knight, Mrs Jill


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhew, Victor
Knox, David


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Lamont, Norman


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gorst, John
Lane, David


Churchill, W. S.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lawrence, Ivan


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Eldon
Lawson, Nigel


Clegg, Walter
Grist, Ian
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cockcroft, John
Grylls, Michael
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hall, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cope, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Lloyd, Ian


Cordle, John H.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Loveridge, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hampson, Dr Keith
Luce, Richard


Crawford, Douglas
Hannam, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Crouch, David
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
McCrindle, Robert


Crowder, F. P.
Hastings, Stephen
McCusker, H.


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Havers, Sir Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hawkins, Paul
MacGregor, John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hayhoe, Barney
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)







McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Pink, R. Bonner
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stanley, John


Madel, David
Prior, Rt Hon James
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Marten, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mates, Michael
Rathbone, Tim
Stokes, John


Mather, Carol
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maude, Angus
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tapsell, Peter


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Mawby, Ray
Reid, George
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Tebbit, Norman


Mayhew, Patrick
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Mills, Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Miscampbell, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Roger
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Molyneaux, James
Ross, William (Londonderry)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Montgomery, Fergus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Viggers, Peter


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Morgan, Geraint
Sainsbury, Tim
Wakeham, John


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Scott, Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Warren, Kenneth


Mudd, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watt, Hamish


Neave, Airey
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Weatherill, Bernard


Nelson, Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, John


Neubert, Michael
Shepherd, Colin
Welsh, Andrew


Newton, Tony
Shersby, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Normanton, Tom
Silvester, Fred
Wiggin, Jerry


Nott, John
Sims, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Sinclair, Sir George
Winterton, Nicholas


Osborn, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Page, John (Harrow West)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Speed, Keith
Younger, Hon George


Pardoe, John
Spence, John



Pattie, Geoffrey
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Penhaligon, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Mr. Adam Butler and


Percival, Ian
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stainton, Keith

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES

Motion made, and Question put forth-with, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments),
That the draft Administration of Estates (Small Payments) (Increase of Limit) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Miss Betty Boothroyd.]

Question agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question put forth-with, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments),
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) (No. 3) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.—[Miss Betty Boothroyd.]

Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Abortion (Amendment) Bill

Mr. Bryan Gould: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 1,500 signatories from Southampton and the surrounding area. The petitioners are concerned that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill will restrict the availability of abortion and will therefore take away what they describe as a woman's essential right to avoid an accidental and unwanted pregnancy.
They are particularly concerned that this will penalise women on low incomes unable to afford a private abortion:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that no legislation be passed which would restrict the circumstances in which women can have legal abortions, believing that women should have the right to free National Health Service abortions, and that restrictions will lead to enforced pregnancies and motherhood, unwanted children or dangerous back street abortions.

I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Stan Thorne: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition which, purely coincidentally, is on the same subject.
I believe it is the customary practice to indicate the size of the petition. I have not counted the signatures accurately but it is a smaller petition than that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould). It is the result of the work of the Preston Women's Association. The main gist of the petition is:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that no legislation be passed which would restrict the circumstances in which women can have legal abortions, believing that women should have the right to free National Health Service abortions, and that restrictions will lead to enforced pregnancies and motherhood, unwanted children or dangerous backstreet abortions.

To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Miss Boothroyd.]

COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Gould: The Council on Tribunals was set up under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 following the recommendation of the Franks Commission. The 1958 Act has been replaced by the 1971 Act, which imposed and conferred upon the council a certain number of functions.
The council has a general duty to keep under review and to report upon the constitution and working of a number of specified tribunals, and it has the right to be consulted when procedural rules affecting those tribunals are to be made. The council also in practice is consulted, although it has no right to claim to be consulted, when draft legislation is in preparation which will affect administrative procedures. The council is also required to make reports on matters referred to it by the Lord Chancellor and matters which the council itself thinks of special interest.
It is extremely difficult to assess the council's effectiveness in performing a

range of such vaguely defined functions. The rôle of a body which is consultative only, which has no machinery for making sure that its views are enforced, is always difficult. No one can have read the annual reports of the council without appreciating the limitations and the frustrations of that rôle. I think, however, that the suspicion persists that Governments have increasingly seen their consultation with the council as a necessary preliminary which simply establishes their virtue, after which they can go on to make the real decisions.
I think that the suspicion is also present that the council has all too often acquiesced in this apparently supine rôle.
It is to a particular aspect of the council's functions that I wish to draw attention. The function that I have in mind is not described in terms of the Act, but it was described by the council in its annual report of 1960 as being
to act as a watchdog for the ordinary citizen and to see that he gets fair play.
Although those words are not in the Act, there are very few people who would disagree with that description of a vital function of the council, because in truth, apart from a very limited programme of visits to special tribunals, and an even smaller number of special reports, the council is restricted to the investigation of complaints from the public as its major means of carrying out its functions of keeping tribunals under review. Therefore, the way in which the council has performed this aspect of its functions is very important in assessing its overall effectiveness.
The council's responsibilities are of some significance. There are no fewer than 58 different types of tribunals for which the council is directly responsible and which fall under the direct supervision of the council. In 1973 these tribunals dealt with approximately 1¼ million cases. In other words, the tribunals for which the council is responsible are likely to affect the ordinary citizen more directly and more frequently than do the ordinary courts of law. Not only is the area of responsibility very great, but so also is the degree of responsibility, because the council is virtually alone in this field in having imposed on it some degree of supervisory responsibility over the whole range of tribunals.
The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 excluded from the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman those issues where the complainant had a right to seek a remedy before a tribunal. That means that the ordinary complainant who wishes to show that he has not been properly treated by a tribunal is precluded from going to the Ombudsman. It may be true that he has a right to take his case to the courts, but that is likely to be such a time-consuming and expensive procedure that one can expect very few people to pursue it.
The ordinary complainant has no remedy with the Ombudsman or with the courts. In some areas, particularly in connection with supplementary benefits, he will not even be able to appeal against tribunal decisions. The council has a very great responsibility.
Virtually the only attempt to assess the effectiveness of the council has been a report published recently by the Child Poverty Action Group on the outcome of 10 cases it has submitted to the council in the past three-and-a-half years. The group's report is entitled to respect. It has undoubted expertise in social security matters, and only a body which has submitted a series of cases to the council is able to form a judgment and take a wider view. The report is a sad and sorry catalogue. In some cases no reply was received by the complainant; in other cases replies were received only months or years after the matter was first raised. Action was delayed and ineffective and sometimes was not even notified to the complainant. In only one or two cases does the group feel even moderately satisfied.
The conclusion to which any objective reader must be driven is that the council is not only hopelessly ineffective, it is guilty of maladministration in terms of delay and ineptitude that would attract the attention of the Ombudsman if it came under his jurisdiction.
The report is not the only evidence. A voluntary advice service I set up in Southampton three years ago is now handling 1,000 cases a year under the capable guidance of a member of the law faculty of Southampton University. It has had unhappy experiences of the council. A case raised over a year ago

involved a complaint that the chairman of a national insurance tribunal had failed to give an adequate statement of reasons for his decision and that the clerk of the tribunal had failed to pass on a request to the chairman for a detailed statement. No action or substantive reply has yet been forthcoming from the council.
In part, the answer to this sorry state of affairs is that the council is not sufficiently equipped with staff and resources to deal with the volume of complaints one would expect it to receive. The council seems to have abandoned the practice of publishing in its annual report the number of cases received in the preceding year.
I am sure that the council is an estimable body, but it meets only 10 times a year and is, no doubt, concerned with loftier matters than individual complaints. One must conclude that individual complaints are dealt with by the very small executive staff with very few being referred to the council or its complaints committee. Such complaints are, quite wrongly, given very low priority.
There are not only staffing, and machinery problems. The council has no statutory power to enforce any of its recommendations. It is compelled in many senses to sail under false colours, to offer the illusion, rather than the reality, that it is an effective machinery for dealing with complaints about tribunals. I fully accept and understand that it was never intended that the council should be able to redress individual grievances. That is quite properly the province of the appropriate appeal body. We must, however, look for some sign that what the council says in response to individual cases will be said clearly and quickly and he taken into account. I think that is simply not happening.
I think particularly of one area where the council has intervened with recommendations about the giving of reasons, an area where one would hope that its intervention would be effective but where, regrettably, that has not been the case. The whole concept of this aspect of the council's function needs substantial review. It would be nice if replies to correspondence could be given more promptly, but something more is needed. It is not my function to recommend exactly what that should be, but I hope


that the Minister might come up with some suggestions.
It would be possible to provide the council with much increased staff and resources to enable it to do an effective job. It would also need increased powers, particularly of enforcement. As an alternative, my hon. Friend might consider the transfer to the Ombudsman of the powers of the council in this respect. There is a further difficulty which would involve tackling this problem at a much more fundamental level. I am thinking of tribunals which fail to provide adequate safeguards to people appearing before them. The answer should be the provision of some statutory form of procedure to which tribunals would be obliged to adhere. Under such a code, individual complainants would be given a simple form of remedy in the courts for breaches of that code.
In the matters which have concerned the Child Poverty Action Group—for example, the question of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals—it would be possible and highly desirable that a second-tier appeal body should be introduced which would greatly improve the operation of those tribunals. That is something for which the group and others, including myself, have argued on many occasions.
All of these suggestions merit consideration, but my real purpose tonight is simply to suggest to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, on the basis of the group's report, that something is seriously wrong and needs putting right. This needs to be done initially at the practical level, but arguably also at a more fundamental level. After all, someone should be doing in an effective way the job which the council is claiming for itself of ensuring that the ordinary man has a watchdog and a guarantee of fair treatment from the tribunals of this country.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Mr. Michael Hamilton (Salisbury)
 rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Has the hon. Member reached an agreement with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) and the Minister to speak in the debate?

Mr. Hamilton: That is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intervene for only two minutes, not because I have any particular knowledge of the Child Poverty Action Group but because I would not wish it to be thought that concern about the Council on Tribunals is confined to one side or the other of the House. I was granted an Adjournment debate on this very topic exactly two years ago, and I am not conscious that my words on that occasion had the slightest effect.
Parliament expects the council to speak out fearlessly whenever and where-ever injustice occurs. It was, by coincidence, 17 years ago tonight that the then Mr. R. A. Butler, piloting through the Bill setting up the council, said:
some continuous supervision is essential if the confidence of the public is to be inspired and the citizen assured that they"—
that is, tribunals—
carry out their duties in accordance with the principles of fairness, openness and impartiality."—[Official Report, 3rd July 1958; Vol. 590, c. 1606.]
Thus it is the job of the Council on Tribunals to inspire public confidence.
I ask myself whether the council is fulfilling that rôle. If it were not for my considerable personal respect for the chairman of the Council on Tribunals, I should find it easy to dismiss that body as some tame satellite of Government, a sub-branch of the Lord Chancellor's office, a body which opts for the quiet life and is careful to keep its head well down below the parapet.
Of course, Ministers encourage the impression that the Council on Tribunals is some obscure academic advisory body. It may be that we shall hear more of this theme tonight. Of course, Ministers wish to damp down the rôle of the fearless independent critic. Ministers do not welcome the idea of an independent watchdog such as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) referred to. But that is not what Parliament intended, whatever Ministers may say.
I remember that in July 1969 a Minister told this House:
We are having these discussions and can rely upon the Council on Tribunals to insist"—
that was the word he used—
if it is thought necessary."[Official Report, 25th July 1969; Vol. 787, c. 2344.]


Most Ministers, however, prefer to stifle the idea that this is a strong and independent council. I well remember my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) saying:
There is no power for the Council … to insist".—[Official Report, 19th July 1973; Vol. 860, c. 984.]
With respect to him, I would say that this is a ministerial conspiracy and that it is a travesty of Parliament's original intention.
Yet, if I have doubts, I do not yet despair of the Council on Tribunals. Distinguished public figures would not be prepared to serve on such a body without the assurance that their recommendations carried decisive weight. Moreover, they are courteous people, people of eminence in their several spheres. I therefore reserve judgment. I hope that they will realise that, while Lords Chancellors come and go, Parliament looks to them to speak out. I intend approaching the council very shortly for its help, and I hope that it will give it.

11.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) on a matter on which I know he has considerable expertise and about which he feels great concern. I congratulate him on the manner in which he presented his argument—all the more commendable, because he has been engaged, night after night, in the deliberations on the Community Land Bill. It must be a welcome relief for him, even at 11.30 at night, to speak on a different matter.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) spoke on a matter concerning the Council on Tribunals, because he has been concerned about this topic over the years. Indeed, he has done the council a great service by consistently raising what he genuinely regards as great shortcomings in the way that it operates. Speaking for this Minister, I certainly welcome the idea of the council being an independent watchdog and being so regarded.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I detail the composition of the council. I know that both hon. Members who have

spoken in the debate are familiar with it, but, as they are aware, it goes to the very root of the issues which have been raised tonight.
The council at present has 16 members, one of whom has been appointed primarily to represent Welsh interests. There is also a Scottish committee which at present has eight members, of whom four are members of the council.
The chairman of the council, whom the hon. Member for Salisbury has rightly praised, is the right hon. Lord Tweedsmuir. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, by virtue of his office, is a member of both the council and the Scottish committee. The chairman's post, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, is a part-time salaried post, but the other members are unpaid. The council is supported by a small staff of officials. The staffing of the tribunal was a point raised by my hon. Friend. The staffing requirements are being reviewed now by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
As my hon. Friend said, the council was set up in 1958 to supervise the operation of tribunals which were growing in number and which covered an extremely wide field. As my hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate, the numbers have grown considerably since then and, indeed, the matters with which the council deals have consistently grown more complex.
My hon. Friend also stated quite accurately that the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 confers three duties upon the council: first, to keep under review the constitution and working of tribunals and to report on this; second, to consider and report on particular matters referred to the council—such references being usually made by the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Advocate; and third, to consider and report on such matters as the council may consider to be of special importance with respect to administrative procedures involving statutory inquiries.
The council is, therefore, concerned with supervising the procedures and proper functioning of tribunals. It is not, as my hon. Friend said, equipped to deal with individual cases, save where these raise a point of general application. It


receives a number of individual complaints, but it is rarely open to the council to intervene to secure any redress for the individual complainant, unless a tribunal is able and willing to review a decision already given or, in the case of an inquiry, the Minister has not given his decision and is prepared to reopen the inquiry.
Complaints about individual cases do, however, enable the council to perform a very important function. They are of great assistance in identifying weaknesses or shortcomings in the procedure or organisation of tribunals. They are also of assistance to the council in framing advice to Departments. The council regards this as its main function and one with which it is fully equipped to deal. On the one hand, it seeks to deal with the issues raised by complainants in a constructive way. On the other hand, it is able to ensure that any proposals it may put forward take account of departmental difficulties or other administrative factors.
After that introduction, perhaps I may deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend. The main criticism he made was the major criticism in the report of the Child Poverty Action Group—he is quite right in supposing that I have read that—which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is studying. The main criticism made is that the council is dilatory in dealing with complaints. I certainly have no intention of defending administrative delays. They are always to be regretted wherever they occur. I think that the council would be the last to claim that there has been no delay on its part or that the cause for delays has never lain within the council. I know that the council is aware of the complaints that have been made. I am sure that it will take them to heart, and certainly take to heart the criticisms my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Perhaps I ought to make a few points, not by way of defence but in order to get the matter into perspective. The council covers a very wide range of tribunals, inquiries and other administrative procedures, many of considerable complexity. It would be unrealistic to expect the council's staff to have at their fingertips a detailed and expert knowledge of them all.
In order to appraise itself properly of a complaint, it is invariably necessary for

the council to refer the matter to the Department concerned for its comments. It is only in this way that the council can obtain a full and complete account of the surrounding circumstances and ensure that it is aware of all the relevant considerations, particularly those of a procedural nature. This process may, of course, involve inquiries of a tribunal or local office of a Department. All of this takes time. Indeed, it may require a protracted exchange of correspondence with the Department before all the issues have been thoroughly examined and the council is in a position to make proposals, if the proposals are appropriate.
The Lord Chancellor and I are anxious to dispel any impression that the council is an impotent body, while at the same time I would not want to overstate what the council can do.
It may be appropriate if I illustrate this area of the council's work by examples of action taken in respect of the supplementary benefit appeal tribunals as my hon. Friend mentioned those bodies. These tribunals heard 26,000 cases in 1973. The Child Poverty Action Group's criticisms in its pamphlet were specifically concerned with the supplementary benefit appeal tribunals. It is fair to say that the criticisms are directed more at the way in which Parliament constituted the council and the system of supplementary benefit appeals which is placed under the council's jurisdiction than at the way in which the council has carried out the duties entrusted to it by Parliament.
My hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Salisbury and I would not want to comment on individual cases which are the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
I have discussed this matter with the Lord Chancellor and I invite my hon. Friend to meet my noble Friend if he wishes to draw his attention to any points. I know that my noble Friend will be only too glad to meet him, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will avail himself of that opportunity.
My hon. Friend said fairly that he wanted to air certain issues. I do not think he would have expected me to go into details or to pass comment on his useful and well-thought-out suggestions. I shall see that they are drawn to the


attention of the Lord Chancellor. No doubt my hon. Friend will make the same points when he meets my noble Friend.
This has been a valuable debate, not least because it has enabled the House to discuss a matter which is seldom discussed. It has also reminded the House of what the Council on Tribunals is, what it does and how it carries out its duties. I hope that the misconceptions about its rôle and powers have been dispelled and, what is more important, that I have been able to assure my hon.

Friend the Member for Test that the council has a rôle of importance to play. Although I do not suggest that there has not been a lack of communication between the council and the individual complainants, which can be irritating to the ordinary citizen, the council nevertheless has an important rôle. The House is grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.